Oh No! Is anyone with 3D going to Samsung S II ???

[gTen]

Originally Posted by orangekid

That's not the point, a lot of games made specifically for snap/tegra don't run well or at all on mali because of the texture compression issue amonst others and the fact that arm creates the cortex and the mali doesn't mitigate performance and compliance issues. You have to look at actual compatibility.

but I tire of the comparison.

You've validated the point that comparing the SGS2 to the 3D in current state unmodded is like comparing the Evo4G to the Vibrant, flawed.

I can run all the Tegra 2 games on my Epic and they work..with a little help of chainfire magic lol

In the end what I am saying is the game devs will optimize for the mali...as ARM brings the developers on since mali is their product...no samusungs...

[orangekid]

yeah you have to have root access just to use chainfire's workarounds lol...

which shows that the mali has problems that game devs cannot always work around.

both chipsets have pros and cons, at the end of the day we're talking about 4.5" and smaller phones. IMO both adreno and mali are overkill, if I want a game with sick graphics and real gaming I'll power up a PC or gaming console on an HDTV, this whole idea of making a phone as powerful as a 6-core i7 is pretty ludicrous to me.

Here's a concept when comparing the SGS2 vs 3D/Sensation, you can't go wrong! Do you want Sense or not? That's really the only practical variable.

Everything else is just pointless ranting about this bench or that spec, which I guess is the nature of our site

[gTen]

Originally Posted by orangekid

yeah you have to have root access just to use chainfire's workarounds lol...

which shows that the mali has problems that game devs cannot always work around.

I said the original Galaxy S...

both chipsets have pros and cons, at the end of the day we're talking about 4.5" and smaller phones. IMO both adreno and mali are overkill, if I want a game with sick graphics and real gaming I'll power up a PC or gaming console on an HDTV, this whole idea of making a phone as powerful as a 6-core i7 is pretty ludicrous to me.

Actually I think the idea is pretty awesome..I mean imagine bringing a wireless controller and a tv out cable and then playing console games anywhere without a full sized system...Both may be overkill for the games of today..but games of tomorrow will be more demanding..so expect "higher graphics" angry-birds and etc that taxes these gpus..

But more importantly is Hardware acceleration...aka GPU making your Flash play better and your browser load faster!

Here's a concept when comparing the SGS2 vs 3D/Sensation, you can't go wrong! Do you want Sense or not? That's really the only practical variable.

Everything else is just pointless ranting about this bench or that spec, which I guess is the nature of our site

Well there is more to it then just sense..aside the processor we have camera performance, audio quality and etc...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

And phone sales are up....cause? While we are in an economic disaster we have been for a while..you can get a 3D TV for cheap too.the problem is 3D is not big enough motivation to swap...simple as that...as I said before..I dont mind 3d in theaters..but even on a 55" screen its not the same...

Phones sales are up because they are a lot cheaper than tv's, and they are only designed to last 1 or 2 years. It's not like buying a TV that costs $2000 and is designed to last 10 years. Of course the recession will have a much bigger impact on tv's than phones. And it has absolutely nothing to do with 3D. if you want to cherry pick numbers like that, then I can easily say 3D tv sales are UP, way up in fact, and 3D phone sales are obviously way up.

Originally Posted by gTen

As I said before..its a nice gimmicky thing..but its not a deal breaker for most people..reading the evo3d forum it seems most people don't care too much for the 3d...not saying they hate it but they would have been fine either way..

Yet they still bought it. Hmmm... And again, we'll see if they care in 15 years when their pictures and videos are all in 3D, and every tv sold is 3D.

Originally Posted by gTen

you make too many sacrifices on 2d aspect for 3d atm :/

What sacrifice did I make on my Evo 3D? None. And every picture and can easily be converted to 2D if I want anyway.

Originally Posted by gTen

not for 25$...but it can be done..though I dont see why...

No it can't be done. Because when you connect your tv to a bluray player, Directv receiver, PS3, or whatever you are using to play 3D movies, it will not see your tv as a compatible device and won't send the video. You really need to go get yourself a 3D tv/phone/whatever before you continue on this subject. You continually demonstrate your lack of knowledge on this topic, but constantly post claims that incorrectly imply that you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by gTen

As I said before..its a gimmick.for one the 3D tech we use now is not REAL 3D..in 15 years we will have REAL 3D..then maybe it will be worth it...so far I'd rather take a higher quality 2D picture/video over a lower quality 3D one...

It's not a gimmick. It's the natural progression of display technology. I guess if you considered HD a gimmick a few years ago, then you might consider 3D a gimmick today. But anyone watching an old video on their new tv today would certainly appreciate if it was recorded in 1080p. Just like they will appreciate their 3D pictures and videos in a few years.

[orangekid]

agreed, 3D on a tv is awesome.

[gTen]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

Phones sales are up because they are a lot cheaper than tv's, and they are only designed to last 1 or 2 years. It's not like buying a TV that costs $2000 and is designed to last 10 years. Of course the recession will have a much bigger impact on tv's than phones. And it has absolutely nothing to do with 3D. if you want to cherry pick numbers like that, then I can easily say 3D tv sales are UP, way up in fact, and 3D phone sales are obviously way up.


Yet they still bought it. Hmmm... And again, we'll see if they care in 15 years when their pictures and videos are all in 3D, and every tv sold is 3D.

As I said, in 15 years it will be TRUE 3d probably..not fake 3D..heck some people can't even see the current 3D...That said..ask people if they would have bought an Evo3D if it did not have 3D..I am sure 90% will say yes...

What sacrifice did I make on my Evo 3D? None. And every picture and can easily be converted to 2D if I want anyway.

Parralex Barrier makes the LCD slightly worse even in 2D because it adds an extra layer on top. You also got 2 sub par 5mp cameras, instead of 1 good 8mp camera (and yes I know mp is not everything hence why "good" is bold)..it also could have been thinner and use up less energy.

No it can't be done. Because when you connect your tv to a bluray player, Directv receiver, PS3, or whatever you are using to play 3D movies, it will not see your tv as a compatible device and won't send the video. You really need to go get yourself a 3D tv/phone/whatever before you continue on this subject. You continually demonstrate your lack of knowledge on this topic, but constantly post claims that incorrectly imply that you know what you're talking about.

My setup revolves around streaming content from my pc..I can make it render after the post processing and appear as it would on a 3d screen...no big deal really...

It's not a gimmick. It's the natural progression of display technology. I guess if you considered HD a gimmick a few years ago, then you might consider 3D a gimmick today. But anyone watching an old video on their new tv today would certainly appreciate if it was recorded in 1080p. Just like they will appreciate their 3D pictures and videos in a few years.

No there is a big difference..

The jump to HD meant that you got more pixel density thus more detail and higher quality...

3D films is a tech that was made in 1950s..

If going back 60 years is progress then you got me there...until we get TRUE 3D tech...its a gimmick...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by gTen

As I said, in 15 years it will be TRUE 3d probably..not fake 3D..heck some people can't even see the current 3D...That said..ask people if they would have bought an Evo3D if it did not have 3D..I am sure 90% will say yes...

And in 100 years we will "probably" have holograms. It doesn't change the fact that right now, 3D is better than 2D, and any videos shot in 3D will look better than videos shot in 2D in 15 years.

Originally Posted by gTen

Parralex Barrier makes the LCD slightly worse even in 2D because it adds an extra layer on top. You also got 2 sub par 5mp cameras, instead of 1 good 8mp camera (and yes I know mp is not everything hence why "good" is bold)..it also could have been thinner and use up less energy.

Pictures and videos frrm the Evo 3D are identical in quality to pictures ad videos on the Sensation. The screen is also identical. We are not sacrificing a darn thing in order to have 3D.

Originally Posted by gTen

My setup revolves around streaming content from my pc..I can make it render after the post processing and appear as it would on a 3d screen...no big deal really...

It IS a big deal. When the NBA Finals come on ESPN 3D and you can't watch it because your Directv receiver thinks your TV is 2D, all your friends that came over to watch it won't care that you have a PC connected to your tv. And you can substitute the NBA Finals for any tv show you want, any pay per view movie you want, and any PS3 game you want.

Originally Posted by gTen

No there is a big difference..

The jump to HD meant that you got more pixel density thus more detail and higher quality...

3D films is a tech that was made in 1950s..

If going back 60 years is progress then you got me there...until we get TRUE 3D tech...its a gimmick...

3D film tech was absolutely NOT made in the 50's. Yes, they had 3D in the 5-0's, but it is NOT the same 3D we use today. Don't believe me? Go buy a 3D tv and then rent the 3D version of My Bloody Valentine. Then come back and tell me why the 3D didn't work on your tv with your 3D glasses.

Again, just stop. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to 3D.

[orangekid]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

Pictures and videos frrm the Evo 3D are identical in quality to pictures ad videos on the Sensation. The screen is also identical. We are not sacrificing a darn thing in order to have 3D.

I'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

8mp with much better quality than the 5mp on the Evo3D, stereoscopic 2mp so forget converting without losing quality, and the extra screen layer does make the qHD in the Sensation more clear and better.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by orangekid

I'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

8mp with much better quality than the 5mp on the Evo3D, stereoscopic 2mp so forget converting without losing quality, and the extra screen layer does make the qHD in the Sensation more clear and better.

The Sensation has a higher mp count, yes. But there are tons of comparisons online with pictures and videos side by side of the 2 devices and there is no difference in image quality.

Same thing with the screen. There are tons of comparisons of the 2 devices side by side, and there is no difference in screen quality.

As with anything, some will say the quality on the Sensation is better, some will say the Evo 3D has better quality. But it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that going with 3D means you sacrifice way too much, as gTen claimed. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

[orangekid]

Originally Posted by BlackDynamite

The Sensation has a higher mp count, yes. But there are tons of comparisons online with pictures and videos side by side of the 2 devices and there is no difference in image quality.

Same thing with the screen. There are tons of comparisons of the 2 devices side by side, and there is no difference in screen quality.

As with anything, some will say the quality on the Sensation is better, some will say the Evo 3D has better quality. But it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that going with 3D means you sacrifice way too much, as gTen claimed. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

It's not significant but to me there's a difference.

The only thing you really sacrifice is real estate in the back and battery life.