Quote:
Originally Posted by gTen
Do you even know how quadrant works? see..this is why I say your in denial of facts..stop trying to change reality to your own liking..fact of matter is..they finished the test at SAME SPEED..only I/O was slower..but since I/O is not very important the SGS scored a higher score.
So while I would agree that the resolution had an effect on the quadrant score (for 2d and 3d scores, not cpu, I/O and memory scores)..the time it finished is irrelevant...stop trying to make something out of something that isn't there...
|
The bottom line is they started at the same time, and the Sensation was done significantly faster. For a test that is supposedly measuring performance, that should be it. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gTen
Must we really get into a lengthy discussion on the difference between 'p' and 'i'? but for kicks is it an LCD or an DLP?
|
I fully undertstand the difference between progressive and interlaced. And this is a rear projection tv.
Liek I said, the tv supports 480p just fine, so the "p" isn't a problem. It also supports 1080i just fine, so the pixels aren't a problem. If your theory is correct and there is absolutely no change in processing, then it should easily support 1080p. After all, the 1080p/24 is only 24 fps, 1080i is 30 fps. And since it does 480p, we know it doesn't have a problem with progressive.
And by the way, there are plenty of tv's out there that do 1080 but won't do 720 resolutions.
If it did not require any processing, then any 1080p tv would be able to do 3D since in the end, the 3D is running at the same 1080p or 720p resolution.
None of that matters though. Anyone who knows the first thing about resolutions will immediately tell you that it absolutely does matter if you are testing the processing power. You want a fair test- crank that Galaxy S 2 up to qhd (since you said it supports it with a kernel flash, which I doubt, but whatever) and then run that test with the devices running the same resolution.