4 ms·

> 6.7" 1600x720 It's probably usable, but dips down below what even extra-cheap Xiaomis and such offer. I really want to see a Linux phone's specsheet that's

> 6.7" 1600x720 It's probably usable, but dips down below what even extra-cheap Xiaomis and such offer. I really want to see a Linux phone's specsheet that's even a little competitive.

Aachen 1y ago
I've always considered it a benefit if they don't spend needless money and waste my battery life on rendering more pixels than I'll ever see. My eyesight hasn't gotten better and as a teenager the 720p pixel density of the phablet called Galaxy Note 2 was already smaller than I can make out during normal use (i.e. not if I'm actively trying to see if I can make them out) But sure, higher number sells better, no matter if this actually makes any difference to anyone
- zamadatix 1y ago
  If it were just that "higher number sells better" reasoning then it wouldn't make sense the density increases had a pretty hard stop after ~2014. Same with why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream - it's about the genuine limit for a typical person at typical TV viewing distance unless they have an absolutely massive TV. I always thought Samsung had a clever approach with a toggle to just render at the lower resolution if you wanted the lower rendering load. Then you still only need to develop 1 cutting edge screen with all of the latest improvements but it will please both use cases well as the cost overhead of shipping models 2 separate screens would.
  - Aachen 1y ago
    > why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream People also stop getting eight kids the generation after child mortality plummets. The experience I had until 1080p on computer screens (not 6 inch phones) is that it added sharpness in video reproduction. I can't tell you why people then went for 4k, besides speculating it's the same phenomenon. We've also got a 4k TV simply because there was no additional cost for the featureset we were looking for anyway, and it was the biggest TV we've ever had so it didn't sound weird to have more pixels in it, but indeed, now that I own it, I can say there was no point and I'll not upgrade to a higher pixel density if there were to be a price difference or other downside (like how power draw would show up on the energy label) Regarding the Samsung rendering thing, is that on TVs specifically? Because I don't think I've noticed that on my Samsung phones, where the impact ought to be more noticeable than for a wall-powered device
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      But here every type of screen (watch, phone, tablet, Laptop, TV) happened to hit the same angular resolution target (different resolutions based on distance but the same perceived density) at different times, purportedly by chance if not for being the meaningful limit for the average person. That may well not be the limit for you, but you'd still have to explain why this is if you want to claim anything about the average. It's a feature on the phones https://www.sammyfans.com/2025/07/06/display-setting-actually-improves-samsung-phones-battery/ https://www.sammyfans.com/2025/07/06/display-setting-actuall...
- user_7832 1y ago
  > But sure, higher number sells better, no matter if this actually makes any difference to anyone I'm not sure if I'd call it "making a difference", but I've noticed pixelation at one point on my 5.2" 1080p phone (424 ppi). I'm absolutely not the average person, sure, but higher resolutions are markedly nicer for me. A 16" 4k laptop is significantly crispier than my 13.5" 1500ish p framework screen. Yet you will find people who say that 4k below a 28" monitor size makes no sense. It's all about how sensitive your eyes are and how much you lean towards the screen like a poorly postured crustacean lol
nine_k 1y ago
This is approximately 240 dpi, on par with MacBook retina display's DPI. Should be fine, unless you want to use a magnifying glass.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  I agree it won't be awful by any means, but it's relatively meaningless to directly compare DPIs of screens which have different typical viewing distances.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    How much different? To me it's approximately the same, a the length of a semi-stretched arm.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      Google says ~1.5x-1.7x, which would be the same factor for the angular density.
makeitdouble 1y ago
It's a testament to Xiaomi's excellence. They're the third global phone maker for a reason.
- daneel_w 1y ago
  The size of the Chinese market is an equally important reason.

> 6.7" 1600x720 It's probably usable, but dips down below what even extra-cheap Xiaomis and such offer. I really want to see a Linux phone's specsheet that's even a little competitive.

Aachen 1y ago

I've always considered it a benefit if they don't spend needless money and waste my battery life on rendering more pixels than I'll ever see. My eyesight hasn't gotten better and as a teenager the 720p pixel density of the phablet called Galaxy Note 2 was already smaller than I can make out during normal use (i.e. not if I'm actively trying to see if I can make them out) But sure, higher number sells better, no matter if this actually makes any difference to anyone

zamadatix 1y ago
If it were just that "higher number sells better" reasoning then it wouldn't make sense the density increases had a pretty hard stop after ~2014. Same with why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream - it's about the genuine limit for a typical person at typical TV viewing distance unless they have an absolutely massive TV. I always thought Samsung had a clever approach with a toggle to just render at the lower resolution if you wanted the lower rendering load. Then you still only need to develop 1 cutting edge screen with all of the latest improvements but it will please both use cases well as the cost overhead of shipping models 2 separate screens would.
- Aachen 1y ago
  > why 8k TV hype died down but 4k TV became mainstream People also stop getting eight kids the generation after child mortality plummets. The experience I had until 1080p on computer screens (not 6 inch phones) is that it added sharpness in video reproduction. I can't tell you why people then went for 4k, besides speculating it's the same phenomenon. We've also got a 4k TV simply because there was no additional cost for the featureset we were looking for anyway, and it was the biggest TV we've ever had so it didn't sound weird to have more pixels in it, but indeed, now that I own it, I can say there was no point and I'll not upgrade to a higher pixel density if there were to be a price difference or other downside (like how power draw would show up on the energy label) Regarding the Samsung rendering thing, is that on TVs specifically? Because I don't think I've noticed that on my Samsung phones, where the impact ought to be more noticeable than for a wall-powered device
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    But here every type of screen (watch, phone, tablet, Laptop, TV) happened to hit the same angular resolution target (different resolutions based on distance but the same perceived density) at different times, purportedly by chance if not for being the meaningful limit for the average person. That may well not be the limit for you, but you'd still have to explain why this is if you want to claim anything about the average. It's a feature on the phones https://www.sammyfans.com/2025/07/06/display-setting-actually-improves-samsung-phones-battery/ https://www.sammyfans.com/2025/07/06/display-setting-actuall...
user_7832 1y ago
> But sure, higher number sells better, no matter if this actually makes any difference to anyone I'm not sure if I'd call it "making a difference", but I've noticed pixelation at one point on my 5.2" 1080p phone (424 ppi). I'm absolutely not the average person, sure, but higher resolutions are markedly nicer for me. A 16" 4k laptop is significantly crispier than my 13.5" 1500ish p framework screen. Yet you will find people who say that 4k below a 28" monitor size makes no sense. It's all about how sensitive your eyes are and how much you lean towards the screen like a poorly postured crustacean lol

nine_k 1y ago

This is approximately 240 dpi, on par with MacBook retina display's DPI. Should be fine, unless you want to use a magnifying glass.

zamadatix 1y ago
I agree it won't be awful by any means, but it's relatively meaningless to directly compare DPIs of screens which have different typical viewing distances.
- nine_k 1y ago
  How much different? To me it's approximately the same, a the length of a semi-stretched arm.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    Google says ~1.5x-1.7x, which would be the same factor for the angular density.

makeitdouble 1y ago

It's a testament to Xiaomi's excellence. They're the third global phone maker for a reason.

daneel_w 1y ago
The size of the Chinese market is an equally important reason.