Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackDynamite
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.
|
Translation: You don't like the facts and are making an excuse. IF you time the video for each test its exactly the same except the I/O test..which taks longer due to the large rom..
Quote:
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.
|
rear projection is dlp...
I don't even see the point of this discussion as I said earlier because rendering something at a resolution and displaying at a certain resolution are different things!
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't have an SGS2 to test with..either way once those benchmarks are out and if SGS2 beats the Evo 3d, will you deny the facts again just like the above quadrant thing? or actually accept it?