x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options
    Close





Would you sacrifice Quad HD resolution on flagships for better battery life? (poll results)

0. phoneArena posted on 20 Mar 2017, 04:49

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.

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 04:55 6

1. Cat97 (Posts: 305; Member since: 02 Mar 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 20 Mar 2017, 04:58 6

3. liberalsnowflake (banned) (Posts: 273; Member since: 24 Feb 2017)


Samsung pentile displays were never qhd son, its just marketing stunt to lure their sheeps.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 05:18 8

4. Cat97 (Posts: 305; Member since: 02 Mar 2017)


That is, until the new iPhones, when Samsung's pentile AMOLED will suddenly become great, right ? :)

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 05:26

5. liberalsnowflake (banned) (Posts: 273; Member since: 24 Feb 2017)


Honey I don't use iphone

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 16:35

27. tacarat (Posts: 804; Member since: 22 Apr 2013)


Retina display 2.0, where they upgraded all of our iEyes to see even better? Awesome!

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 06:10 3

11. NoToFanboys (Posts: 2939; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Don't know what's worse, sheep like them or snowflakes like you.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:13

24. tedkord (Posts: 13869; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


What they are is the best displays on the market, per both subjective reviews and objective testing.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:44

25. omnitech (Posts: 869; Member since: 28 Sep 2016)


Lol yes, a marketing stunt that actually increases the pixels!

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 06:25

12. L0n3n1nja (Posts: 425; Member since: 12 Jul 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 20 Mar 2017, 07:09

17. remixfa (Posts: 14604; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


"FULL HD" is just 1080p.

Samsung displays are 2k screens, not 4k.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 05:27 1

6. Jackdaw (Posts: 60; Member since: 10 Mar 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 20 Mar 2017, 05:43

10. chenski (Posts: 545; Member since: 22 Mar 2015)


But not the best battery atm, qhd and good battery life are mutually exclusive until technology develop further

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 08:49

19. trojan_horse (Posts: 4662; Member since: 06 May 2016)


"qhd and good battery life are mutually exclusive until technology develop further"

Well... the S7 edge already has great battery life with a Quad HD display.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 06:28

13. L0n3n1nja (Posts: 425; Member since: 12 Jul 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 20 Mar 2017, 05:36 3

7. darkkjedii (Posts: 24447; Member since: 05 Feb 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 20 Mar 2017, 08:17

18. kiko007 (Posts: 5229; Member since: 17 Feb 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 20 Mar 2017, 09:42

22. darkkjedii (Posts: 24447; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Exactly bro, I've zero use for quad HD. I'd love a 3 day battery on the other hand.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 05:37 1

8. Jacksie66 (Posts: 32; Member since: 03 Feb 2017)


And here's me happily plodding along with my xperia Z3 compact..

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 06:42 1

15. monoke (Posts: 736; Member since: 14 Mar 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 20 Mar 2017, 06:57

16. nctx77 (Posts: 2374; Member since: 03 Sep 2013)


Outside of VR, 1080p is all one needs on these small displays!

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 08:51

20. trojan_horse (Posts: 4662; Member since: 06 May 2016)


No sacrifice from me! Quad HD and VR all the freaking way!

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 09:08

21. jeroome86 (Posts: 2028; Member since: 12 Apr 2012)


Yes I would. Humans don't have eagle vision except for a few mutants on this site.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories