Intel Core i9 9900KS processor review
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
ASUS PRIME X570 Pro review
ASUS ROG STRIX Scope keyboard review
GALAX GeForce RTX 2070 Super WTF review
ADATA Spectrix S40G 512GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC III Ultra review
Promo: URcdkey Halloween sale Windows 10 Pro for 11$
Samsung Announces Galaxy S9 with super-slow-motion, available in March
Pretty much on par with what has leaked over the past few weeks, Samsung announced its Galaxy S9 series smartphones. The new model will be available in March with prices running to the 850 and 950 Euro marker.
The phoS9 has been unveiled during a press conference at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Overall, the S9 will be quite similar to the S8. Samsung has slightly thinned the screen edges of the new model. In addition, the fingerprint scanner is now placed under the camera, where should be easier to reach. The Super AMOLED displays get a thicker Corning Gorilla Glass 5 protection.
The cameras get some upgrades, a dual camera lens comes with f/1.5 and f/2.4 apertures for low light conditions, the camera automatically switches to the correct aperture to ensure optimal exposure. A prominent new feature is the much-discussed camera slow motion function with its capability to record 960 frames per second. According to Samsung, a recording of 0.2 seconds can be stretched to six seconds. A motion detector ensures that the camera only activates when there is actually something to film.
Samsung has also integrated DRAM memory into the camera sensor. This memory is used to cache several images at the same time during shooting, which are combined to create the best image.
The Galaxy S9’s new AR Emoji feature allows users to create their own realistic or cartoon-like emojis using the device‘s facial recognition technology. From a single selfie, the device analyzes a 2D image of you by mapping more than 100 distinct facial features, and then applies that image to a 3D model to generate an avatar that looks just like you and can imitate your facial expressions. AR Emoji are fully customizable, can easily be shared with others and also used as a wallpaper for the user’s home or lock screen.
The S9 has been fitted with a 64-bit octa-core processor and sees 4GB or RAM. The S9+ has 6GB of memory. Samsung also equipped the smartphone with stereo speakers made by AKG. The Galaxy S9 will be available from 16 March. The regular S9 model with a 5.8 inch screen costs 849 euros, the larger S9+ has a 6.2 inch display and is priced at 949. The phones are for sale in the colors black, blue and purple.
Samsung Working on OLED TVs based on Blue OLEDs and quantum dots - 02/22/2018 10:22 AM
Will it finally happen, Samsung supposedly has been showing prototypes of OLED TVs in of 55 "and 65" sizes. The new prototypes OLED screens would use blue OLEDs with red and green color f...
Samsung and Qualcomm Working on 7nm EUV Process Technology - 02/22/2018 10:21 AM
Samsung announced the intention to expand their decade-long foundry relationship into EUV (extreme ultra violet) lithography process technology, including the manufacture of future Qualcomm Snapdrago...
Samsung Starts Volume Production of a 30.72-terabyte SSD - 02/20/2018 08:38 AM
And before you get your hopes up, you'll never be able to afford it :) Samsung announced that it has begun mass producing the industry's largest capacity Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) solid state driv...
Samsung has surplus OLED screens due to disappointing iPhone X sales - 02/19/2018 09:09 AM
It's a bit of a paradox when you think about it, but Samsung has a surplus of OLED displays, because sales of the iPhone X are not at the level they should be....
Samsung Halts Galaxy S8 Oreo Update Due to Reboot Bug - 02/16/2018 08:57 AM
Samsung has halted the Android 8 Oreo update for the Galaxy S8 after users reported random reboots. "Following a limited number of cases where Galaxy S8 and S8+ devices have rebooted unexpectedl...
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5523171 Posted on: 02/26/2018 02:25 PM
It pretty much comes down to market analysis. When they set a really high price, it limits the number of customers, but the high profit from every customer makes up for it. Just like selling sports cars or fancy watches. This is still a normal market with normal functionality because every phone manufacturer tries to have an expensive model or two, and there are lots of manufacturers. It's different compared to, for example, the memory market where the demand is exceedingly strong and still growing, but the scarce manufacturers are only limiting production and raising the prices as much as they want, generating astronomical profits. There's never going to be such a lack of phones available in the phone market, unless one manufacturer comes up with and patents something totally new that everybody will immediately want.
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.
It pretty much comes down to market analysis. When they set a really high price, it limits the number of customers, but the high profit from every customer makes up for it. Just like selling sports cars or fancy watches. This is still a normal market with normal functionality because every phone manufacturer tries to have an expensive model or two, and there are lots of manufacturers. It's different compared to, for example, the memory market where the demand is exceedingly strong and still growing, but the scarce manufacturers are only limiting production and raising the prices as much as they want, generating astronomical profits. There's never going to be such a lack of phones available in the phone market, unless one manufacturer comes up with and patents something totally new that everybody will immediately want.
anthos
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2005-11-14
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2005-11-14
#5523285 Posted on: 02/26/2018 06:43 PM
It's cheap to manufacture:
https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/
and the component costs aren't great either:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/20/649-iphone-7-estimated-to-cost-apple-220-heres-the-component-breakdown/
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.
I don't get how doctors use a couple of hundreds worth of expendables at best to perform a surgery and then charge you thousands for it
It's cheap to manufacture:
https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/
and the component costs aren't great either:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/20/649-iphone-7-estimated-to-cost-apple-220-heres-the-component-breakdown/
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.
I don't get how doctors use a couple of hundreds worth of expendables at best to perform a surgery and then charge you thousands for it
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 2009-05-12
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 2009-05-12
#5523293 Posted on: 02/26/2018 06:59 PM
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
I don't get how doctors use a couple of hundreds worth of expendables at best to perform a surgery and then charge you thousands for it
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5523305 Posted on: 02/26/2018 07:16 PM
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
How is that not the same?
I don't know if everyone is necessary but Apple has over 800 people working on the iPhone's camera alone:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/20/10631330/iphone-camera-team-800-people
You have UI artists, software programmers, material science experts, industrial designers, radio specialists, packaging designers, hardware integration engineers for memory, mainboard, storage, speakers, etc - then you have the entire team behind manufacturing in both assembly and chip fabrication, supply chain, hell even the entire HR department, janitorial staff, etc. Like all that stuff costs a ton of money for both time and the hardware/software that support them and a lot of it is done by highly skilled people who also spent time a fair amount of time on education. My college roommate spent 5 years at RIT for a masters in EE then another 4 at Penn state for his PHD - he works at Apple now.
Like yeah, I'm sure Apple makes some profit on their phones - but it's not like anyone at Apple is getting paid this extravagant amounts of money - Tim Cook's net worth isn't even over a billion dollars and he's already pledged to give it all away when he dies. So the money is either going back into the companies R&D, which means more people are getting hired and more people have better paying jobs or they are just stockpiling it in bunkers for some reason.
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
How is that not the same?
I don't know if everyone is necessary but Apple has over 800 people working on the iPhone's camera alone:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/20/10631330/iphone-camera-team-800-people
You have UI artists, software programmers, material science experts, industrial designers, radio specialists, packaging designers, hardware integration engineers for memory, mainboard, storage, speakers, etc - then you have the entire team behind manufacturing in both assembly and chip fabrication, supply chain, hell even the entire HR department, janitorial staff, etc. Like all that stuff costs a ton of money for both time and the hardware/software that support them and a lot of it is done by highly skilled people who also spent time a fair amount of time on education. My college roommate spent 5 years at RIT for a masters in EE then another 4 at Penn state for his PHD - he works at Apple now.
Like yeah, I'm sure Apple makes some profit on their phones - but it's not like anyone at Apple is getting paid this extravagant amounts of money - Tim Cook's net worth isn't even over a billion dollars and he's already pledged to give it all away when he dies. So the money is either going back into the companies R&D, which means more people are getting hired and more people have better paying jobs or they are just stockpiling it in bunkers for some reason.
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2009-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2009-09-15
#5523325 Posted on: 02/26/2018 07:40 PM
Mr. Teacher from Mom and Dad? Is that you? :p
And the sad thing about this story is paying almost 1k€ and getting only 2 years software support in which your receive 2 - 3 updates per year talking about Planned obsolescence.
Mr. Teacher from Mom and Dad? Is that you? :p
Darkiee
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 2009-05-12
Senior Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 2009-05-12
#5523336 Posted on: 02/26/2018 07:54 PM
How is that not the same?
I don't know if everyone is necessary but Apple has over 800 people working on the iPhone's camera alone:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/20/10631330/iphone-camera-team-800-people
You have UI artists, software programmers, material science experts, industrial designers, radio specialists, packaging designers, hardware integration engineers for memory, mainboard, storage, speakers, etc - then you have the entire team behind manufacturing in both assembly and chip fabrication, supply chain, hell even the entire HR department, janitorial staff, etc. Like all that stuff costs a ton of money for both time and the hardware/software that support them and a lot of it is done by highly skilled people who also spent time a fair amount of time on education. My college roommate spent 5 years at RIT for a masters in EE then another 4 at Penn state for his PHD - he works at Apple now.
Like yeah, I'm sure Apple makes some profit on their phones - but it's not like anyone at Apple is getting paid this extravagant amounts of money - Tim Cook's net worth isn't even over a billion dollars and he's already pledged to give it all away when he dies. So the money is either going back into the companies R&D, which means more people are getting hired and more people have better paying jobs or they are just stockpiling it in bunkers for some reason.
Well, that is well said. I don´t argue with that.
But, perhaps it´s just my mind, what is finding my own comparisons. Never the less, you have a very solid points.
How is that not the same?
I don't know if everyone is necessary but Apple has over 800 people working on the iPhone's camera alone:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/20/10631330/iphone-camera-team-800-people
You have UI artists, software programmers, material science experts, industrial designers, radio specialists, packaging designers, hardware integration engineers for memory, mainboard, storage, speakers, etc - then you have the entire team behind manufacturing in both assembly and chip fabrication, supply chain, hell even the entire HR department, janitorial staff, etc. Like all that stuff costs a ton of money for both time and the hardware/software that support them and a lot of it is done by highly skilled people who also spent time a fair amount of time on education. My college roommate spent 5 years at RIT for a masters in EE then another 4 at Penn state for his PHD - he works at Apple now.
Like yeah, I'm sure Apple makes some profit on their phones - but it's not like anyone at Apple is getting paid this extravagant amounts of money - Tim Cook's net worth isn't even over a billion dollars and he's already pledged to give it all away when he dies. So the money is either going back into the companies R&D, which means more people are getting hired and more people have better paying jobs or they are just stockpiling it in bunkers for some reason.
Well, that is well said. I don´t argue with that.
But, perhaps it´s just my mind, what is finding my own comparisons. Never the less, you have a very solid points.
anthos
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2005-11-14
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 2005-11-14
#5523359 Posted on: 02/26/2018 08:20 PM
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
As a surgeon myself there was a very distinct reason why I made that comparison. Because you can't strip something down to its indivindual components and assert how much it should cost while completely disregarding a whole sheer of other factors. Costs of licensing and patents? Costs for the whole marketing divisions? Costs for the R&D divisions? Programmers? Graphic designers? And so on and so on. Without those you either have no phone or have a phone that no one knows it exists.
I wouldnt compare these two. More or less, phone parts are made my machine, and as a surgeon, you need to have a extensive learning for it. And, most of the "hardware" surgeons use, are re-usable.
It´s not the cost of items for the job, it´s the cost of skilled ppl doing the steady hand job, and how much time they spend time on education.
Surely, the engineers are skilled aswell, who are able to invent this tech, and machines to make them, but i woulnd´t compare these two.
As a surgeon myself there was a very distinct reason why I made that comparison. Because you can't strip something down to its indivindual components and assert how much it should cost while completely disregarding a whole sheer of other factors. Costs of licensing and patents? Costs for the whole marketing divisions? Costs for the R&D divisions? Programmers? Graphic designers? And so on and so on. Without those you either have no phone or have a phone that no one knows it exists.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7679
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5523430 Posted on: 02/26/2018 11:19 PM
It's cheap to manufacture:
https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/
and the component costs aren't great either:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/20/649-iphone-7-estimated-to-cost-apple-220-heres-the-component-breakdown/
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.
As i said, i don't disagree they are overly expensive, however, the two links do not give you a good view of what it should cost, either.
The "labor" one from the first post is pure BS, not because it's wrong about what it specifically states, but because it does not take into consideration: What apple actually pays per phone labor. By that i mean, i can guarantee you that Apple is not paying the cost of the labor to have their phones manufactured there. The companies manufacturing the phones have to pay their workers, their higher end management, cost of tools, electricity, etc. etc. etc. and then add on their own mark up so they aren't just paying to keep the door open, they need profit as well. So "$30 per phone" is pure nonsense.
And the 2nd link doesn't take into consideration R&D, only costs of materials. R&D is a hard thing to put as a "cost" per phone since obviously whatever they set that price to will determine if R&D gets paid by how many phones are produced and sold.
To understand the cost of any device and what someone should sell their product for you have to figure out the costs of all of these factors:
Manufacturing costs (not materials, but rather manufacturers cost to make your device in their production facility. This is not only the specific labor)
Materials cost
R&D Costs (added per device is dependent on how many devices are expected to sell and then taking a "worst case scenario" to cover your bases)
Shipping and Handling costs (Will have multiple shipping and handling costs)
Tax costs (not retail tax that is paid by the consumer)
Their own company costs (not R&D, but rather to pay their non-R&D employees/boss'/buildings/electricity/etc.)
Retail stores markup (Stores are not going to carry your product if you force them to sell your product at cost)
And finally: Generally anywhere between 10-100% profits markup, differs by company as well as the product. more often then not, the cheap random $1 products usually have a 50% or higher markup, whereas the expensive products generally have less then 50% markup.
I can guarantee you that the all of these things taken into consideration before the final markup will cost more then $250.80, which is what your two links would like people to believe. It's more likely to range somewhere in the $400-500, but this is for a flagship phone, which most people really don't need.
It's cheap to manufacture:
https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/
and the component costs aren't great either:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/20/649-iphone-7-estimated-to-cost-apple-220-heres-the-component-breakdown/
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.
As i said, i don't disagree they are overly expensive, however, the two links do not give you a good view of what it should cost, either.
The "labor" one from the first post is pure BS, not because it's wrong about what it specifically states, but because it does not take into consideration: What apple actually pays per phone labor. By that i mean, i can guarantee you that Apple is not paying the cost of the labor to have their phones manufactured there. The companies manufacturing the phones have to pay their workers, their higher end management, cost of tools, electricity, etc. etc. etc. and then add on their own mark up so they aren't just paying to keep the door open, they need profit as well. So "$30 per phone" is pure nonsense.
And the 2nd link doesn't take into consideration R&D, only costs of materials. R&D is a hard thing to put as a "cost" per phone since obviously whatever they set that price to will determine if R&D gets paid by how many phones are produced and sold.
To understand the cost of any device and what someone should sell their product for you have to figure out the costs of all of these factors:
Manufacturing costs (not materials, but rather manufacturers cost to make your device in their production facility. This is not only the specific labor)
Materials cost
R&D Costs (added per device is dependent on how many devices are expected to sell and then taking a "worst case scenario" to cover your bases)
Shipping and Handling costs (Will have multiple shipping and handling costs)
Tax costs (not retail tax that is paid by the consumer)
Their own company costs (not R&D, but rather to pay their non-R&D employees/boss'/buildings/electricity/etc.)
Retail stores markup (Stores are not going to carry your product if you force them to sell your product at cost)
And finally: Generally anywhere between 10-100% profits markup, differs by company as well as the product. more often then not, the cheap random $1 products usually have a 50% or higher markup, whereas the expensive products generally have less then 50% markup.
I can guarantee you that the all of these things taken into consideration before the final markup will cost more then $250.80, which is what your two links would like people to believe. It's more likely to range somewhere in the $400-500, but this is for a flagship phone, which most people really don't need.
Duke Nil
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 2009-02-17
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 2009-02-17
#5523503 Posted on: 02/27/2018 05:15 AM
I was actually kinda interested but now I just don't want one.
The Galaxy S9’s new AR Emoji feature...
I was actually kinda interested but now I just don't want one.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5523554 Posted on: 02/27/2018 10:06 AM
Because it is true for them also.
Gaming today is more about bragging rights, 14000HZ which nobody can see or use, a million by a million resolution display and what more...
I am playing just fine Red Dead Redemption on Xbox 360 at 480P on a CRT and it is just fine. I also played it on an 1080P TV and while looking more beatiful, I didn't like the game more or didn't succeed better in the missions.
That is the way with phones these days. You get stupid high res screens, which drain the battery a lot faster than a 720P display. Then, you complain about battery life. Processors in smartphones are very fast for what? Reading messages, posting on FB and taking a few pictures?
Let's be objective here. I am not intending to offend you in any way. I am just pointing out that phone makers release products too fast, with too little changes from previous gen to worth spending 1000 dollars.
Best thing to do is to buy a last gen S7 which now is affordable and call it a day.
No offense, but if you're gaming on 480p on a CRT it sounds to me like you may not be qualified to comment on high-Hz or high-res monitors since you likely haven't experienced any.
It's impossible for me to imagine someone willingly staying on 480p on different grounds other than lack of money or experience with higher resolutions.
Because it is true for them also.
Gaming today is more about bragging rights, 14000HZ which nobody can see or use, a million by a million resolution display and what more...
I am playing just fine Red Dead Redemption on Xbox 360 at 480P on a CRT and it is just fine. I also played it on an 1080P TV and while looking more beatiful, I didn't like the game more or didn't succeed better in the missions.
That is the way with phones these days. You get stupid high res screens, which drain the battery a lot faster than a 720P display. Then, you complain about battery life. Processors in smartphones are very fast for what? Reading messages, posting on FB and taking a few pictures?
Let's be objective here. I am not intending to offend you in any way. I am just pointing out that phone makers release products too fast, with too little changes from previous gen to worth spending 1000 dollars.
Best thing to do is to buy a last gen S7 which now is affordable and call it a day.
No offense, but if you're gaming on 480p on a CRT it sounds to me like you may not be qualified to comment on high-Hz or high-res monitors since you likely haven't experienced any.
It's impossible for me to imagine someone willingly staying on 480p on different grounds other than lack of money or experience with higher resolutions.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9755
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9755
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5523578 Posted on: 02/27/2018 11:51 AM
No offense, but if you're gaming on 480p on a CRT it sounds to me like you may not be qualified to comment on high-Hz or high-res monitors since you likely haven't experienced any.
It's impossible for me to imagine someone willingly staying on 480p on different grounds other than lack of money or experience with higher resolutions.
Long time ago I played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on old Gaming notebook 720x480. It was because I preferred effects quality and fps over resolution. As on 1280x800, it would not achieve high fps no matter how much I cut down textures/effects.
There are some advantages to it, but nothing what can be better than playing on decent HW:
- On Low resolution you do not notice poor animation quality
- On Low resolution you do not notice aliasing as much
- On Low resolution texture shimmering is non-existent as it is all kind of random
- On Low resolution, effects look bit better, same goes for shaders
- On Low resolution things may even appear as photorealistic
(You can check some 4k game footage trailers downsized to something like 720x400, they look amazing. Viz. Vermintide 2 trailer.)
That's effect of shader code written for higher resolutions and calculated on higher resolution, then precisely downsampled to something much smaller.
But actual IQ of low res image will not beat IQ of high res. Low "cinematic" fps will never beat normal 60fps or higher.
With High refresh rate and fps, there is only one way things GO:
"I just got that new shiny 120Hz screen and I do not really see much of an difference."
"I had if for month and then I accidentally switched back to 60Hz, and it was awful."
That's thing every single person denying 120Hz screens told me. Same goes for higher refresh rate. You will adapt to recognize difference over time.
No offense, but if you're gaming on 480p on a CRT it sounds to me like you may not be qualified to comment on high-Hz or high-res monitors since you likely haven't experienced any.
It's impossible for me to imagine someone willingly staying on 480p on different grounds other than lack of money or experience with higher resolutions.
Long time ago I played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on old Gaming notebook 720x480. It was because I preferred effects quality and fps over resolution. As on 1280x800, it would not achieve high fps no matter how much I cut down textures/effects.
There are some advantages to it, but nothing what can be better than playing on decent HW:
- On Low resolution you do not notice poor animation quality
- On Low resolution you do not notice aliasing as much
- On Low resolution texture shimmering is non-existent as it is all kind of random
- On Low resolution, effects look bit better, same goes for shaders
- On Low resolution things may even appear as photorealistic
(You can check some 4k game footage trailers downsized to something like 720x400, they look amazing. Viz. Vermintide 2 trailer.)
That's effect of shader code written for higher resolutions and calculated on higher resolution, then precisely downsampled to something much smaller.
But actual IQ of low res image will not beat IQ of high res. Low "cinematic" fps will never beat normal 60fps or higher.
With High refresh rate and fps, there is only one way things GO:
"I just got that new shiny 120Hz screen and I do not really see much of an difference."
"I had if for month and then I accidentally switched back to 60Hz, and it was awful."
That's thing every single person denying 120Hz screens told me. Same goes for higher refresh rate. You will adapt to recognize difference over time.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5523623 Posted on: 02/27/2018 03:16 PM
Long time ago I played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on old Gaming notebook 720x480. It was because I preferred effects quality and fps over resolution. As on 1280x800, it would not achieve high fps no matter how much I cut down textures/effects.
There are some advantages to it, but nothing what can be better than playing on decent HW:
- On Low resolution you do not notice poor animation quality
- On Low resolution you do not notice aliasing as much
- On Low resolution texture shimmering is non-existent as it is all kind of random
- On Low resolution, effects look bit better, same goes for shaders
- On Low resolution things may even appear as photorealistic
(You can check some 4k game footage trailers downsized to something like 720x400, they look amazing. Viz. Vermintide 2 trailer.)
That's effect of shader code written for higher resolutions and calculated on higher resolution, then precisely downsampled to something much smaller.
But actual IQ of low res image will not beat IQ of high res. Low "cinematic" fps will never beat normal 60fps or higher.
With High refresh rate and fps, there is only one way things GO:
"I just got that new shiny 120Hz screen and I do not really see much of an difference."
"I had if for month and then I accidentally switched back to 60Hz, and it was awful."
That's thing every single person denying 120Hz screens told me. Same goes for higher refresh rate. You will adapt to recognize difference over time.
You do raise some good points about the low-res stuff. For example the original Starcraft looks pretty realistic to me even to this day. Especially the portraits, they are really really well done, those horizontal lines really trick my brain into believing them.
Quake 2 is another example where I feel like the rugged textures helped a lot - at least as long as you don't get very close to stuff like character/monster models.
With regards to 120+Hz screens, I concur with what you said but I noticed it also depends on the game genre the user is used to. I noticed that avid FPS players were much more impressed than say MOBA player, and rightfully so - I can play Dota on 60FPS but I absolutely cannot do the same with CS:GO or Quake Live/Champions. The more fast paced the game is, the more jarring it becomes playing at 60FPS.
Long time ago I played Elder Scrolls: Oblivion on old Gaming notebook 720x480. It was because I preferred effects quality and fps over resolution. As on 1280x800, it would not achieve high fps no matter how much I cut down textures/effects.
There are some advantages to it, but nothing what can be better than playing on decent HW:
- On Low resolution you do not notice poor animation quality
- On Low resolution you do not notice aliasing as much
- On Low resolution texture shimmering is non-existent as it is all kind of random
- On Low resolution, effects look bit better, same goes for shaders
- On Low resolution things may even appear as photorealistic
(You can check some 4k game footage trailers downsized to something like 720x400, they look amazing. Viz. Vermintide 2 trailer.)
That's effect of shader code written for higher resolutions and calculated on higher resolution, then precisely downsampled to something much smaller.
But actual IQ of low res image will not beat IQ of high res. Low "cinematic" fps will never beat normal 60fps or higher.
With High refresh rate and fps, there is only one way things GO:
"I just got that new shiny 120Hz screen and I do not really see much of an difference."
"I had if for month and then I accidentally switched back to 60Hz, and it was awful."
That's thing every single person denying 120Hz screens told me. Same goes for higher refresh rate. You will adapt to recognize difference over time.
You do raise some good points about the low-res stuff. For example the original Starcraft looks pretty realistic to me even to this day. Especially the portraits, they are really really well done, those horizontal lines really trick my brain into believing them.
Quake 2 is another example where I feel like the rugged textures helped a lot - at least as long as you don't get very close to stuff like character/monster models.
With regards to 120+Hz screens, I concur with what you said but I noticed it also depends on the game genre the user is used to. I noticed that avid FPS players were much more impressed than say MOBA player, and rightfully so - I can play Dota on 60FPS but I absolutely cannot do the same with CS:GO or Quake Live/Champions. The more fast paced the game is, the more jarring it becomes playing at 60FPS.
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5523653 Posted on: 02/27/2018 04:22 PM
Yup. I find it disappointing how Samsung continues to copy Apple. It seems that whenever Apple announces a new feature (Apple Pay, 64-bit, 3D Touch, Animojis) Samsung quickly copies it for their next phone (Samsung Pay, 64-bit, pressure-sensitive home button, AR Emojis). For all their technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities, they still look to Apple for design inspiration.
Speaking as a repeat Samsung customer (currently have a S8+, and a S6 before this), I really wish they would stop taking after Apple, especially when it comes to gimmicky features like 3D Touch and virtual emojis (the first was never needed on Android, and the latter is just a joke). Samsung could do so much more with their market dominance, but they seem afraid to deviate from Apple's path (thus we are stuck with thin, fragile phones with terrible battery life and gimmicky features that no one asked for).
As for the S9, I already have the S8+ so I'm good. Don't really see anything that appealing about the S9 that would justify an upgrade.
I was actually kinda interested but now I just don't want one.
Yup. I find it disappointing how Samsung continues to copy Apple. It seems that whenever Apple announces a new feature (Apple Pay, 64-bit, 3D Touch, Animojis) Samsung quickly copies it for their next phone (Samsung Pay, 64-bit, pressure-sensitive home button, AR Emojis). For all their technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities, they still look to Apple for design inspiration.
Speaking as a repeat Samsung customer (currently have a S8+, and a S6 before this), I really wish they would stop taking after Apple, especially when it comes to gimmicky features like 3D Touch and virtual emojis (the first was never needed on Android, and the latter is just a joke). Samsung could do so much more with their market dominance, but they seem afraid to deviate from Apple's path (thus we are stuck with thin, fragile phones with terrible battery life and gimmicky features that no one asked for).
As for the S9, I already have the S8+ so I'm good. Don't really see anything that appealing about the S9 that would justify an upgrade.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5523661 Posted on: 02/27/2018 04:38 PM
Yup. I find it disappointing how Samsung continues to copy Apple. It seems that whenever Apple announces a new feature (Apple Pay, 64-bit, 3D Touch, Animojis) Samsung quickly copies it for their next phone (Samsung Pay, 64-bit, pressure-sensitive home button, AR Emojis). For all their technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities, they still look to Apple for design inspiration.
Speaking as a repeat Samsung customer (currently have a S8+, and a S6 before this), I really wish they would stop taking after Apple, especially when it comes to gimmicky features like 3D Touch and virtual emojis (the first was never needed on Android, and the latter is just a joke). Samsung could do so much more with their market dominance, but they seem afraid to deviate from Apple's path (thus we are stuck with thin, fragile phones with terrible battery life and gimmicky features that no one asked for).
As for the S9, I already have the S8+ so I'm good. Don't really see anything that appealing about the S9 that would justify an upgrade.
You say 'no one asked for' but like every teenager/millennial/'desperate housewife watching' person I know with an iPhone loves that gimmicky emoji garbage. They sit there all day sending them back and forth to one another. I don't get it, I'll never get it - but when you have a market of these people wanting it and Apple gives it to them and now someone is on the fence on what to buy and Samsung doesn't offer it.. while their friends sit there spewing augmented rainbow unicorn dildos from their mouths or whatever, they'll end up buying the iPhone.
I remember when Swiftkey first added themes and all the themes were the most gaudy garbage ever, themes that I couldn't possibly comprehend from a design perspective - those ended up being the best selling because there is a market for it and it's actually a large market. You just don't see people asking for it because the people that want it aren't the types that post on forums.
On the flipside Samsung has definitely pushed a number of innovative features (both good and bad) that Apple has copied. Large screen size being the most obvious one but now wireless charging as well and a bunch others - or in some cases they simply kept features like the headphone jack, while Google/Apple/Lenovo and whomever are removing them.
Yup. I find it disappointing how Samsung continues to copy Apple. It seems that whenever Apple announces a new feature (Apple Pay, 64-bit, 3D Touch, Animojis) Samsung quickly copies it for their next phone (Samsung Pay, 64-bit, pressure-sensitive home button, AR Emojis). For all their technical know-how and manufacturing capabilities, they still look to Apple for design inspiration.
Speaking as a repeat Samsung customer (currently have a S8+, and a S6 before this), I really wish they would stop taking after Apple, especially when it comes to gimmicky features like 3D Touch and virtual emojis (the first was never needed on Android, and the latter is just a joke). Samsung could do so much more with their market dominance, but they seem afraid to deviate from Apple's path (thus we are stuck with thin, fragile phones with terrible battery life and gimmicky features that no one asked for).
As for the S9, I already have the S8+ so I'm good. Don't really see anything that appealing about the S9 that would justify an upgrade.
You say 'no one asked for' but like every teenager/millennial/'desperate housewife watching' person I know with an iPhone loves that gimmicky emoji garbage. They sit there all day sending them back and forth to one another. I don't get it, I'll never get it - but when you have a market of these people wanting it and Apple gives it to them and now someone is on the fence on what to buy and Samsung doesn't offer it.. while their friends sit there spewing augmented rainbow unicorn dildos from their mouths or whatever, they'll end up buying the iPhone.
I remember when Swiftkey first added themes and all the themes were the most gaudy garbage ever, themes that I couldn't possibly comprehend from a design perspective - those ended up being the best selling because there is a market for it and it's actually a large market. You just don't see people asking for it because the people that want it aren't the types that post on forums.
On the flipside Samsung has definitely pushed a number of innovative features (both good and bad) that Apple has copied. Large screen size being the most obvious one but now wireless charging as well and a bunch others - or in some cases they simply kept features like the headphone jack, while Google/Apple/Lenovo and whomever are removing them.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3109
Joined: 2011-11-24
It's cheap to manufacture:
https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/
and the component costs aren't great either:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/20/649-iphone-7-estimated-to-cost-apple-220-heres-the-component-breakdown/
So even though "$100" was an exaggeration, there is no way these phones are not blatantly overpriced.