I’m looking forward to seeing how much it smashes the battery.
A half decent effort to objectively measure this was done here:
90 Vs 60 but I expect the difference is even harder to spot at 120.
The truth is so long as people pay for it, it will exist. It’s buyers who make sellers. In a phone you trade higher refresh rate for lower battery life and there is a lack of apps which can drive it, so it’s the device which least needs it. In a mains power device like a PC monitor there’s less of a compromise downside.
I’ve had a Razer Phone 2 for about half a year now, the Razer 1 being the first 120Hz phone to market.
The biggest difference between 60Hz and 120Hz isn’t how smooth animations are, but rather the reduced input lag. Sure, it’s amazing how you can now read fine text WHILE scrolling, but what really hits you is that you can do EVERYTHING faster; the phone responds so much faster.
We’ve been getting faster and faster mobile chipsets in phones, but the only way to increase responsiveness past 16miliseconds is to increase the touch polling rate and to increase the screen’s refreshrate. It’s like hoping for faster and faster GPUs to be released, but then never wanting to upgrade your TV or monitor past 720p.
However the Razer Phones have IGZO displays, which are said to use 1/5th to 1/10th the power of regular mobile (I assume IPS) displays. So I don’t notice much of a battery hit as it already has a lot of power savings using such an efficient display. IDK how these 120Hz OLED displays will manage.
PS: Sharp has revealed that future Nintendo Switch consoles will have IGZO displays, but so far we still haven’t gotten them.
I say 90Hz is the sweet spot. It looks so nice
Never had a 90 hz or 120 hz so I’d like to compare both side by side and see which one I personally like
Significant decrease there @Ice1
I guess ultimately, you buy something to use it not to wonder how good it can be.
But the true benefit is in the mind of the user, but unless a friend gets the same model I’ll never have the opportunity to compare the 2 refresh rates side by side.
The challenge is having only 90 vs 120 the difference, and all other specifications and software the same, so you can see just that specific difference. If you look at reviews of higher screen refresh is better, it is because the cpu or gpu is better.
There is little true science on this and so I suggest to be skeptical of anyone who is trying to “see” a benefit they are retrofitting justification.
A review of a person with 25 year old eyes may be able to see what a buyer with 45 year old eyes cannot see.
With more of us buying online and seeing down-sampled online reviews, it is very hard to find objective truths.
I suggest not paying a $$$ for 120Mhz, even if you see a review saying it is better, until you see with your own eyes. Other eyes may see what they wanted to see, or be better eyes.
That right there is solid advise. Sometimes we follow trends or blindly buy products (mostly tech) because we see YouTubers say certain products are better. I’m guilty of following trends I must admit.
But this time, even though I kinda want the S20 ultra, I don’t think it’s worth the money to upgrade since I have the S10+, so I’ll probably stick to my phone for a few more months.
Anyway, I would like to guess that having a screen with 120 hz is gonna have a big impact on battery life, and I’m not ready to give up a few hours of battery life just for a higher refresh rate.
And since this is Samsung’s first phone with such refresh rate screen, I’d rather wait for the next phone so they can iron out issues and hopefully optimize battery life with such a screen
My phone has a setting for 90Hz and 120Hz.
I can’t visually tell the difference between the two, other than I suppose 120Hz is a little smoother looking.
However the difference in responsiveness to touch between 11.1ms and 8.3ms is somewhat noticeable. (120Hz vs 90Hz)
You CAN feel how 8.3ms feels more like you’re physically dragging something behind the screen, whereas 11.1ms feels more similar to 16.8ms, albeit it looks smoother.
I don’t see why anybody would need a 120Hz display, unless they wanted it for VR, FPS, or Fighting games, where every ms actually feels different. You CAN feel response time a lot more than you can see refreshrate… But on phones? 90Hz.
PS: I believe the S20 runs in 1080p when 120Hz is turned on. Considering OLEDs are still pentile I’d rather have 1080p at 120Hz than 1440p at 60Hz. Whatever aspect ratio it has, IDK.
Interesting, seems like 90hz would be the sweet spot
I need to go TMobile and check it out for myself
Same is with ears and speakers.
At the end it all depends on what a user need. If someone is looking for a 120hz display and they can see it and enjoy it by paying those extra $$ it may be worth for them.
Agree. If a person sees it and objectively sees a benefit, and that benefit is proportional to cost. Totally, that is a person having worked for the money and spending how they wish for maximum gain. Free will. The concern would be a person just spending it because someone else said so like in a review. Gullible.
I do think this is specific to phones. There is something weird going on about phones. They are getting too expensive and have way too much of everything inside them. Why would someone put all this cost in to something which is 5"-6" in size? Every aspect you add in that form factor removes something necessarily. A phone was meant to be something so small you can carry with you and was for talking, then texting, then a small window on the Internet, then games, and now?
That is the thread title, in a handheld device.
$1000+ spent outside of the form factor of handheld gets a lot more of other things, like faster or bigger screen without the same need to compromise some other critical function like battery life.
That is a valid point.
Marques wants it
He makes a good argument, if you paid for the display and know the battery impact, just plug in your Powercore and enjoy.
Great business opportunity for Anker