Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

When your phone has a faster refresh rate than most monitors in the world: the XiaoMi Black Shark 2 Pro

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

latency of a capacitive touch layer

At least from what OP quoted, the 34.x ms number seems to be latency of the panel in response to user input, not the touch layer.

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

At least from what OP quoted, the 34.x ms number seems to be latency of the panel in response to user input, not the touch layer.

That's why you read the sources. While the best would be the Chinese ones, the translations could be off. XDA calls it touch latency as does whatever else I can find. The op also calls it 'input latency', not lag. That sounds like a translation as you'd consider touch a form of input. I've never seen anyone advertise input lag and probably with good reason: not many know what it is, not many care and the number probably sounds higher than they'd like. Touch latency, on the other hand, is often advertised to dunk on competition and to highlight responsiveness. High touch latency causes sluggish response and feel when using the device.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 12:50 PM, G00fySmiley said:

I have a Razer phone 2. the 120hz screen is great. several titles do actually use it, heck the razer site has a list of all the 120hz compatible games to sue... that said vs 60 fps on mobile its hard to see a huge difference. 

 

I do not hold it near my face but rather at a conformable arms length distance. It does get hot but takes about 20-30 min to get uncomfortable and even then I rarely hit that time as gaming usually only happens on it for a few min at a time when waiting for things like a dentist appointment or dr appointment (i have 3 kids so need to wait on lots of things like that)

So you spent double the price for a phone that you can only fully utilize for a few minutes at a time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 9:05 PM, 2Buck said:

240hz 4k on a phone

i dont know where you got 4k from......

On 9/10/2019 at 9:05 PM, 2Buck said:

WHAT'S THE POINT??

its like a portable console, but also a phone

On 9/10/2019 at 9:05 PM, 2Buck said:

"gaming phone" yeah that's cute.

i would argue its a fairly good idea for a younger market of phones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crowbar said:

So you spent double the price for a phone that you can only fully utilize for a few minutes at a time?

how is it double the price? compared to comparable flagship phones it was a pretty good deal. and while i do only use the gaming feature sometimes I am watching media on it constantly at work so yea the nice big screen was totally worth the price. $600 for a phone I will use for probably 2 years seemed reasonable and given how many hours I spend on my device its very justifiable for me to spend that on a good device. (admittedly cross shopped with the Galaxy note but that one was harder to justify on cost.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

i dont know where you got 4k from......

Read too quick. I saw ----x2--- and kept going. my b

 

Quote

its like a portable console, but also a phone

Yeah, like current phones can be now, without 240hz. Seriously, what game is going to take advantage of 240hz on a phone, while being worth a damn? And the majority of phone games just suck anyway. The only fun I've had gaming on my phone is via Nintendo emulators, and 240hz obviously won't apply there either.

The priorities of phone manufacturers just saddens me. Phone barely making it to the end of the day? Hmmmm..... Seal away the battery! Remove the headphone jack! Add more RAAAAAAM! Slap a 240hz screen on there! sPeCsssSs!!!!111!

Current Rig

i7 2600k @ 4.7ghz 1.4v - EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 @ 1500mhz - 16GB Hyper x Fury 1866 - Asus p8z77-v lk (1$) - 250GB SSD - 2x1TB HDD storage - EVGA 650w 80+G G2

 

FX 8320 Rig

FX 8320 @ 4.5ghz - EVGA GTX 770 SC 2GB - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM 212 EVO - Asus M5A97 R2.0 - EVGA 500w Bronze - CM Elite 430 Black

 

Xeon Rig

Xeon e3 1240 @3.3ghz - EVGA GTX 670 - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM Hyper T2 - Seasonic 500w Bronze- Rosewill Micro ATX

 

Nahelem Rig

i7 860 @ 3.7ghz - 8GB DDR3 - GTX 670 - 250GB SSD

 

And of course, my q6600 rig

q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1.45v - Zalman copper cooler - 8GB DDR2 - GTX 560ti - 250GB SSD

 

Server 1: FX 6100 @ 3.8ghz - 12GB DDR3

Server 2 - q6700 @ 3.2ghz - 8GB DDR3

PFSense router: Core 2 Duo @3.16ghz - 4GB DDR3 - 64GB SSD - 16 port tplink gigabit switch

Openmediavault: 4TB - 4GB DDR2 - q6600

 

The 5$ Laptop (Asus r510c) (+60$ worth of upgrades)

Core i5 i5-3337U 1.8ghz (2.5ghz) - 240gb SSD - 320gb WD Black - 8GB DDR3 - Intel HD Graphics 4000

 

HTPC - Wolf In Sheep's Clothing (Crappy HP OEM SFF case and PSU from 2009)

AMD A8 6800k @4.2ghz - GT 1030 2GB GDDR5 - 8GB DDR3 - 250GB SP SSD - Some Asus FM2+ motherboard

 

Bedroom HTPC - The 939 Monster

AMD Athlon 64 x2 @ 2.8ghz - HD 3850 256mb - 4GB DDR400 - 80GB WD Blue IDE - SOCKET 939 BITCHES

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

Yeah, like current phones can be now, without 240hz. Seriously, what game is going to take advantage of 240hz on a phone, while being worth a damn? And the majority of phone games just suck anyway. The only fun I've had gaming on my phone is via Nintendo emulators, and 240hz obviously won't apply there either.

Its as useless as 240hz on PC, but people still like it. Higher refresh is something people want on phones. 240hz is a tad much, but certainly something

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GoldenLag said:

Its as useless as 240hz on PC

No, it's not, because on PC the hardware can actually hit that refresh rate. It looks smoother and the increased reaction times can help slightly. And let's just say the phone COULD hit that refresh rate on games, on PC, you can do exactly what you want with the mouse/keyboard, but on a phone, you're using a crappy bluetooth controller or a touch screen, so your bottleneck is there, not in how fast the screen is refreshing.

 

I know I'm being overly negative, because in the end it's an extra feature for those willing to pay for it. I just have a bunch of built up frustration with phone manufacturer priorities.

Current Rig

i7 2600k @ 4.7ghz 1.4v - EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 @ 1500mhz - 16GB Hyper x Fury 1866 - Asus p8z77-v lk (1$) - 250GB SSD - 2x1TB HDD storage - EVGA 650w 80+G G2

 

FX 8320 Rig

FX 8320 @ 4.5ghz - EVGA GTX 770 SC 2GB - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM 212 EVO - Asus M5A97 R2.0 - EVGA 500w Bronze - CM Elite 430 Black

 

Xeon Rig

Xeon e3 1240 @3.3ghz - EVGA GTX 670 - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM Hyper T2 - Seasonic 500w Bronze- Rosewill Micro ATX

 

Nahelem Rig

i7 860 @ 3.7ghz - 8GB DDR3 - GTX 670 - 250GB SSD

 

And of course, my q6600 rig

q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1.45v - Zalman copper cooler - 8GB DDR2 - GTX 560ti - 250GB SSD

 

Server 1: FX 6100 @ 3.8ghz - 12GB DDR3

Server 2 - q6700 @ 3.2ghz - 8GB DDR3

PFSense router: Core 2 Duo @3.16ghz - 4GB DDR3 - 64GB SSD - 16 port tplink gigabit switch

Openmediavault: 4TB - 4GB DDR2 - q6600

 

The 5$ Laptop (Asus r510c) (+60$ worth of upgrades)

Core i5 i5-3337U 1.8ghz (2.5ghz) - 240gb SSD - 320gb WD Black - 8GB DDR3 - Intel HD Graphics 4000

 

HTPC - Wolf In Sheep's Clothing (Crappy HP OEM SFF case and PSU from 2009)

AMD A8 6800k @4.2ghz - GT 1030 2GB GDDR5 - 8GB DDR3 - 250GB SP SSD - Some Asus FM2+ motherboard

 

Bedroom HTPC - The 939 Monster

AMD Athlon 64 x2 @ 2.8ghz - HD 3850 256mb - 4GB DDR400 - 80GB WD Blue IDE - SOCKET 939 BITCHES

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2Buck said:

No, it's not, because on PC the hardware can actually hit that refresh rate. It looks smoother and the increased reaction times can help slightly.

You know the exact same can be said about phones right?

 

And 240hz is actually useless unless you for some reason play CS:GO as an actual pro

 

2 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

so your bottleneck is there, not in how fast the screen is refreshing.

Actually the realistic holdup is human reactions as 240hz is really just a gimmick. Also it sells, because big numbers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

You know the exact same can be said about phones right?

No, it can't, because a phone will not hold that frame rate. Maybe in candy crush...

Current Rig

i7 2600k @ 4.7ghz 1.4v - EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 @ 1500mhz - 16GB Hyper x Fury 1866 - Asus p8z77-v lk (1$) - 250GB SSD - 2x1TB HDD storage - EVGA 650w 80+G G2

 

FX 8320 Rig

FX 8320 @ 4.5ghz - EVGA GTX 770 SC 2GB - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM 212 EVO - Asus M5A97 R2.0 - EVGA 500w Bronze - CM Elite 430 Black

 

Xeon Rig

Xeon e3 1240 @3.3ghz - EVGA GTX 670 - 16GB RAM - 250GB SSD - CM Hyper T2 - Seasonic 500w Bronze- Rosewill Micro ATX

 

Nahelem Rig

i7 860 @ 3.7ghz - 8GB DDR3 - GTX 670 - 250GB SSD

 

And of course, my q6600 rig

q6600 @ 3.4ghz 1.45v - Zalman copper cooler - 8GB DDR2 - GTX 560ti - 250GB SSD

 

Server 1: FX 6100 @ 3.8ghz - 12GB DDR3

Server 2 - q6700 @ 3.2ghz - 8GB DDR3

PFSense router: Core 2 Duo @3.16ghz - 4GB DDR3 - 64GB SSD - 16 port tplink gigabit switch

Openmediavault: 4TB - 4GB DDR2 - q6600

 

The 5$ Laptop (Asus r510c) (+60$ worth of upgrades)

Core i5 i5-3337U 1.8ghz (2.5ghz) - 240gb SSD - 320gb WD Black - 8GB DDR3 - Intel HD Graphics 4000

 

HTPC - Wolf In Sheep's Clothing (Crappy HP OEM SFF case and PSU from 2009)

AMD A8 6800k @4.2ghz - GT 1030 2GB GDDR5 - 8GB DDR3 - 250GB SP SSD - Some Asus FM2+ motherboard

 

Bedroom HTPC - The 939 Monster

AMD Athlon 64 x2 @ 2.8ghz - HD 3850 256mb - 4GB DDR400 - 80GB WD Blue IDE - SOCKET 939 BITCHES

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

No, it can't, because a phone will not hold that frame rate. Maybe in candy crush...

Depends on the title. And even if it cant hold the fps, it still allows for an increased smoothness.

 

 

Edited by GoldenLag
Correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paring a high refresh rate panel with a Snapdragon 855 doesn’t make a lot of sense. 

Laptop: 2020 13" MacBook Pro i5, 512GB, G7 Graphics, 16GB LPDDR4X | Phone: iPhone 8 Plus 64GB | Wearables: Apple Watch Sport Series 2 | CPU: R5 2600 | Mobo: ASRock B450M Pro4 | RAM: 16GB 2666 | GPU: ASRock RX 5700 8GB | Case: Apple PowerMac G5 | OS: Win 10 | Storage: 480GB PNY SSD & 2TB WD Green HDD | PSU: Corsair CX600M | Display: Dell 27 Gaming Monitor S2719DGF 1440p @155Hz, Dell UZ2215H 21.5" 1080p, ViewSonic VX2450wm-LED 23.6" 1080p | Cooling: Wraith Prism | Keyboard: G610 Orion Cherry MX Brown | Mouse: G303 | Audio: Audio Technica ATH-M50X & Blue Snowball
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2Buck said:

No, it's not, because on PC the hardware can actually hit that refresh rate. It looks smoother and the increased reaction times can help slightly. And let's just say the phone COULD hit that refresh rate on games, on PC, you can do exactly what you want with the mouse/keyboard, but on a phone, you're using a crappy bluetooth controller or a touch screen, so your bottleneck is there, not in how fast the screen is refreshing.

 

I know I'm being overly negative, because in the end it's an extra feature for those willing to pay for it. I just have a bunch of built up frustration with phone manufacturer priorities.

I have 4 144hz monitors for my PC, in addition to my main 165hz one which is the only one that I play games on. Just browsing and moving windows around feels so much better that it was absolutely worth it for me to spend the relatively small extra cash to have a "standardized" refresh rate. 

 

Obviously phones are a different beast due to battery concerns, and 240hz definitely feels like its was past the point of diminishing returns, but I absolutely see the benefit to a 90/120hz phone even as someone who plays basically zero phone games. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2Buck said:

No, it's not, because on PC the hardware can actually hit that refresh rate. It looks smoother and the increased reaction times can help slightly. And let's just say the phone COULD hit that refresh rate on games, on PC, you can do exactly what you want with the mouse/keyboard, but on a phone, you're using a crappy bluetooth controller or a touch screen, so your bottleneck is there, not in how fast the screen is refreshing.

 

I know I'm being overly negative, because in the end it's an extra feature for those willing to pay for it. I just have a bunch of built up frustration with phone manufacturer priorities.

Yeah the things manufacturers are doing sucks, glue in the battery and take away the headphone jack for "water resistance", throw in more cameras and RAM and make the back of the phone even shinier because marketing.

An SD855 is more than enough for a high refresh screen, but I don't see the point of any more than 120hz on a phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, G00fySmiley said:

how is it double the price? compared to comparable flagship phones it was a pretty good deal. and while i do only use the gaming feature sometimes I am watching media on it constantly at work so yea the nice big screen was totally worth the price. $600 for a phone I will use for probably 2 years seemed reasonable and given how many hours I spend on my device its very justifiable for me to spend that on a good device. (admittedly cross shopped with the Galaxy note but that one was harder to justify on cost.  

The point I'm making is that most people that buy flagships don't need them and have convinced themselves it's a status symbol. You see phones now with literally the same amount of RAM as most "gaming" PC's and how much of that actually get's utilized on a day to day basis much less ever? If the hardfware isn't being utilized then you paid a premium for wasted performence. What's the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

The point I'm making is that most people that buy flagships don't need them and have convinced themselves it's a status symbol. You see phones now with literally the same amount of RAM as most "gaming" PC's and how much of that actually get's utilized on a day to day basis much less ever? If the hardfware isn't being utilized then you paid a premium for wasted performence. What's the point?

Because the price of this phone is lower than most flagships anyway, and it's not aimed at average users either.

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 5 3600 @ 4.1Ghz          Case: Antec P8     PSU: G.Storm GS850                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition @ 2Ghz

                                                                                                                             

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 6:50 AM, Master Disaster said:

I love when reviewers spout a forced upgrade as a feature.

 

Google introduced UFS 3.0 as an optional feature with Pie and with 10 it is being forced, in other words if you want your device to run Android 10 then it has to support UFS 3.0.

 

Ftr UFS 3.0 makes rooting very difficult, afaik it's only been achieved on a single phone that uses UFS 3.0 and that's the Pixel 3 and even the the developer says you probably shouldn't use it because it's a very hacky solution.

I think you're getting UFS 3.0 confused with logical partitions.

 

UFS 3.0 = The third version of a flash storage specification detailing physical and logical protocols. It's like SATA but for small flash storage. It doesn't really have anything to do with the OS.

 

Logical partitions = A feature which was supported in Android Pie but is now mandatory in Android 10. It makes it so that partitions can be dynamically resized which allows for some neat features like dynamic system updates (lets you install AOSP on a treble-compatible device without having to unlock the bootloader or wipe data, kind of like dual-booting).

 

The problem caused by logical partitions, and a lot of the rewriting to enable dynamic system updates, is that people like John Wu (developer behind Magisk) had to look through all the changes and figure out how it works. You can follow this journey through it on Twitter.

 

The problem logical partitions caused for rooting is that the whole boot process was changed, and it is now quite a fair bit more complicated.

Here is a detailed explanation: Magisk GitHub

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Crowbar said:

The point I'm making is that most people that buy flagships don't need them and have convinced themselves it's a status symbol. You see phones now with literally the same amount of RAM as most "gaming" PC's and how much of that actually get's utilized on a day to day basis much less ever? If the hardfware isn't being utilized then you paid a premium for wasted performence. What's the point?

you seem to keep ignoring that the razer phone was only $600 compared to other flagships it was a good deal. You can say all you want that the ram and specs are wasted but if its giving me a better lag free experience i really don't care if its all being utilized. when i do game on my phone or watch content I only care that the screen looks good and there is no appreciable lag. what matters is user experience and of all the phones i tried a the time this one felt best and i have the income where honestly saving a few hundred for a worse experience is not a worthwhile tradeoff. If i were a student or making a lower wage that priority might change but as somebody 10 years into a good career... yea no reason to compromise at the price delta... now when I look at the Note 10 max and such that is when things change... this is $1.1k now we are getting closer to the is this twice as good as some of its competitors money. I used to be a note user up to the Note 7 thing but then as prices went up I decided the performance (at the time) vs a one plus was not worth it) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that most people here just type "bla bla gaming phone bad, 240hz is pointless", but what i am more interested is the panel itself.

 

It is an AMOLED, at 240hz, and high res? Why don't we have this kinds of displays for monitors still? I know that a 24" 4k 120hz OLED will launch next year, but why is the phone displays department so far ahead of PC's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Origami Cactus said:

I know that most people here just type "bla bla gaming phone bad, 240hz is pointless", but what i am more interested is the panel itself.

 

It is an AMOLED, at 240hz, and high res? Why don't we have this kinds of displays for monitors still? I know that a 24" 4k 120hz OLED will launch next year, but why is the phone displays department so far ahead of PC's?

probably because of burn in with oled screens. you probably will be forced to replace a phone every 5 years or so because eventually the battery stops working or something breaks so its not as big of a problem but people use their monitors for much longer than that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Newegg

×