Hope they hurry up and release this, my Desire HD is on its last legs
I didn't realise the DHD ever had more than one leg
*** The Official Samsung Galaxy Note II Thread ***
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I didn't realise the DHD ever had more than one leg
Soldato
A leaked spec sheet?
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/08/24/samsung-galaxy-note-2-specs-and-jelly-bean-revealed/
If this is to be believed we will have:
16:9 screen ( ) at 5.5"
1280 x 720 res (so lower resolution and pixel density than the original note )
Quad-core Exynos 4412 at 1.4Ghz (so the same as the GS3)
8MP rear camera
Android 4.1.1 Jellybean
Basically, it's a GS3 with a slightly larger screen (but no increase in fidelity), and JB stock instead of ICS stock.
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/08/24/samsung-galaxy-note-2-specs-and-jelly-bean-revealed/
If this is to be believed we will have:
16:9 screen (
) at 5.5"1280 x 720 res (so lower resolution and pixel density than the original note
)Quad-core Exynos 4412 at 1.4Ghz (so the same as the GS3)
8MP rear camera
Android 4.1.1 Jellybean
Basically, it's a GS3 with a slightly larger screen (but no increase in fidelity), and JB stock instead of ICS stock.
Surely it was/is pretty obvious that was/is going to the case regarding specs being more or less the same as the GS 3, especially when you look at the GS 2 and the note?
I thought that they might have kept the same res. as the note but used the RGB panel type instead of a pentile matrix or at least bumped the res. up a bit more.
I thought that they might have kept the same res. as the note but used the RGB panel type instead of a pentile matrix or at least bumped the res. up a bit more.
Last edited:
Soldato
The original note had a 1280 x 800 res, compared to 800 x 480 on the GS2, so it had over 2.5 times the resolution of the GS2. Similarly, the processor was faster (1.4Ghz vs 1.2Ghz), and the 16:10 screen gave it a larger "length to screen-area" ratio. This was over and above the larger screen size.
This time around the only difference seems to be the screen size. So no - it wasn't "obvious" from looking at the GS2 and note. Clearly they were going to be of similar generation hardware, but to have everything but the screen identical is a little disappointing.
This time around the only difference seems to be the screen size. So no - it wasn't "obvious" from looking at the GS2 and note. Clearly they were going to be of similar generation hardware, but to have everything but the screen identical is a little disappointing.
In real world performance that extra 200MHz would not be noticeable, only in benchmarks. They are both exactly the same CPUs, just one has been overclocked.
That is why I said I thought the screen would have been better than the original note and I would be a bit surprised if that part was true (even using RGB matrix instead of pentile matrix on the 1280x800 would improve the screen further)
I just meant that the specs regarding the GPU/CPU, RAM, design/looks, camera etc. will be the same as the GS 3.
As you said the only difference is really going to be the screen and probably overclock the CPU and have 2GB RAM possibly although not that those 2 last factors will make much, if any difference at all in real world usage. So it will be much the same as the GS 2 compared to the note, just not as big of a difference in the screens this time.
That is why I said I thought the screen would have been better than the original note and I would be a bit surprised if that part was true (even using RGB matrix instead of pentile matrix on the 1280x800 would improve the screen further)
I just meant that the specs regarding the GPU/CPU, RAM, design/looks, camera etc. will be the same as the GS 3.
As you said the only difference is really going to be the screen and probably overclock the CPU and have 2GB RAM possibly although not that those 2 last factors will make much, if any difference at all in real world usage. So it will be much the same as the GS 2 compared to the note, just not as big of a difference in the screens this time.
Last edited:
I can't see Samsung reducing the res. from the previous note whilst increasing the size of the screen, would be a big mistake, at worst they will keep the same res. and use a RGB matrix and at best they will bump the res. up a bit but probably use pentile matrix.
At a push I'd be ok with RGB at that res and size...but Pentile would just disappoint me.
Pushing the res up to 1680 x 945 would make some apps looks a bit pants? I think they maybe stretched? a lot of phones are 720p now and apps I think cater for that res. Just me thinking out loud - apps may actually scale ok?
I dunno will just have to wait and see.
Pushing the res up to 1680 x 945 would make some apps looks a bit pants? I think they maybe stretched? a lot of phones are 720p now and apps I think cater for that res. Just me thinking out loud - apps may actually scale ok?
I dunno will just have to wait and see.
720p would be very disappointing, making the screen thinner is bad enough but making the pixel density lower as well would be horrible. Can't see why samsung would want to make it worse then the original. Edit: unless they make it RGB, which may make up for it.
@kona786 All apps should scale up fine to any resolution and pixel density.
@kona786 All apps should scale up fine to any resolution and pixel density.
Last edited:
what makes them scale soo well? Just interested - are they designed from the ground up to work like that?
Android is designed from the ground up to support any screen size and resolution.
There's very few hard coded sizes in most apps (basic layout is done based on relative sizes), and any hard coded sizes are done using DIP (density independent pixels), which stay the same size independent of pixel density.
More info: http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html#density-independence
cheers, a lot of good info there.
Soldato
Looking at the comments below it looks like that article is just speculation.