Would you sacrifice Quad HD resolution on flagships for better battery life? (poll results)
by Daniel Petrov / Mar 20, 2017, 4:49 AM
We asked you last week how important are those high pixel densities for you, and whether do you think it is worth sacrificing roughly 30% of your potential battery life just to have a Quad HD or higher resolution display with 500+ ppi pixel density. Well, it turns out that most of our 4213 respondents would be perfectly fine with a 1080p display, provided that this resolution would bring improved battery endurance. Out of the 23% who said they are bent on Quad HD or higher resolutions for flagships, a lot need the higher resolution for enjoying VR better on their phones, as exemplified in the comments section. Needless to say, if we could have both, all these points become moot, so let's wait and see how the new flagships with 10nm chipsets will fare in battery life this year.
It's a sad fact of life, but flagship phones have much worse battery endurance than their midrange counterparts with a similar battery size, and the bright Quad HD resolution displays they sport seem to be the culprit. The marriage of a decent battery capacity, and a 1080p display seem to be the winning tradeoff in battery endurance and pixel density these days (well, save for the OnePlus 3T), since the Quad HD flagships are all clustered in the 6-9 hours range of screen-on time in our proprietary script. That goes for the new LG G6, for last year's Galaxy S7 and S7 edge, and for basically every Quad HD handset whose battery hovers in the 3000 mAh - 3500 mAh range, and they are the majority.
clocked 11-13 hours of screen-on time in our test with those battery capacities. Even when vertical parts integration is not the case, 1080p phones are still stealing the battery show. Take the Honor 8, for instance - it scores nine admirable hours of screen-on time in our test, and consistently carries us through two full days with normal use, but has a "mere" 5.2" 1080p display, backed by a 3000 mAh battery. While that endurance is 30% less than the A-series, it's still 30% more than the LG G6 or the Galaxy S7 with their 2440p panels.Samsung, for instance, being both the producer and the assembler of the screens, chipsets and memory of its new A-series, has managed to optimize them better in terms of power consumption than other brands that don't make everything in-house, so they
Would you sacrifice Quad HD resolution on flagships for better battery life?
Yes, in a heartbeat
Posts: 1863; Member since: Mar 02, 2017
Nothing must be sacrified nowadays. On an Exynos S7/Edge, set the resolution from QHD to HD (NOT full HD) and battery life will increase by 30%+, with no significant changes that can be seen visually.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 4:55 AM 6
Posts: 273; Member since: Feb 24, 2017
Samsung pentile displays were never qhd son, its just marketing stunt to lure their sheeps.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 4:58 AM 6
Posts: 1550; Member since: Jul 12, 2016
I've got mine set to HD when power saving, I can easily tell the difference. However I see little difference going from FHD to QHD. The Note 2 to Note 3 was the last time I saw a noticeable improvement in screen quality.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 6:25 AM 0
Posts: 66; Member since: Mar 10, 2016
Answer is no, flagship means to have the available best in mass production. That's the whole point, otherwise it wouldn't be much different from a midrange phone.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 5:27 AM 1
Posts: 760; Member since: Mar 22, 2015
But not the best battery atm, qhd and good battery life are mutually exclusive until technology develop further
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 5:43 AM 0
Posts: 1550; Member since: Jul 12, 2016
I would consider top notch battery life a better flagship feature than a high resolution display. What's the point in something I need to examine text closely on, closer than I hold my phone when using it, just to see a minor difference?
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 6:28 AM 0
Posts: 30971; Member since: Feb 05, 2011
In a heartbeat, just give me 1080P, and amazing battery life. I'm not a gamer, and couldn't care less about VR.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 5:36 AM 3
Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016
Same. I've got maybe 4 games on my phone, and 2K probably wouldn't make them look any better anyways. Mobile VR is kinda...crappy ATM as well. I'm not strapping a phone to my face just to play crappy games...
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 8:17 AM 0
Posts: 1157; Member since: Mar 14, 2015
Qhd is a bastardized rez. and a insignificant step up from 1080p. Content providers of video and gaming have not and will never adopt it, only 4k since it's exact double scaling of 1080p. Images and vids that are 1080 looks sharper in native 1080 screen than qhd. There is no discernable diff between 1080 and qhd in normal viewing distance. Those that argue for vr purposes should realize that qhd (which usually come in amoled pentile) has just a few more effective ppi than a rgb 1080p screen of the same size. Thus the sharpness is minimal if any... So no to qhd for these reasons, not to mention battery u'd gain.
posted on Mar 20, 2017, 6:42 AM 1
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):