Samsung Galaxy S23 and S23+ to be left behind as smartphone market pivots to 1.5K displays

[Redaktion]

According to a new leak, mid-range smartphones next year will make the switch from FHD+ to 1.5K displays, with a resultant display pixel density in the 450 ppi range. Samsung, on the other hand, looks geared to equip the Galaxy S23 and S23+ with FHD+ screens once more, with the S22+ currently offering a miserly 393 ppi.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-Galaxy-S23-and-S23-to-be-left-behind-as-smartphone-market-pivots-to-1-5K-displays.650335.0.html

[3.5mmjacklover]

Who said that low PPI  on small screen is a bad thing?

Try watch some old series/movies with 480p!

On smaller PPI screen you can see it  better!

[Ricci Rox]

Who said that low PPI  on small screen is a bad thing?

Try watch some old series/movies with 480p!

On smaller PPI screen you can see it  better!

You're a silver lining guy, I guess!

[Anonyneko]

Meanwhile, reading this article on a "4K" OLED Xperia 1 from a few years ago... (the older Premium series had true 4K displays, but smaller and not OLED)

[AFricangunslinger]

What a nonsense headline, it has long been established that there is a very hard deminishing return on higher PPI's, even with phone screens that you basically hold up to your face. 1080P is plenty, I personnaly have a phone with a higher resolution and I can't tell the difference whether its set to Full HD or QHD.

It's the basic same marketing bullshit you have with TV's. Most people sitting at any reasonable viewing distance from a TV can't decern individual pixels on a 4K TV but apparently you really need 8K, cause higher numbers means more better hurr durr.

Pretty samefull for this site to propagate this nonsense...

[WaitWhat]

Name one person who cares.
FHD+ > weird odd resolution with dumb name.

[sar166]

screen aspect ratio:
166:100 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> laptop, desktop, tv
166:74 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> mobile // 2656x1184 and/or 2822x1258 (for 2712x1220)
166:126 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> tablet (landscape)
166:152 (vertical length:horizontal length) >> watch
166:152 (horizontal length:vertical length) >> foldable mobile (when open)

[Kortana]

YOU ARE FUCKING NOOB FOR BUY THESE THING!!! STUPID HUMAN!!! LONG LIVE & PROSPER!!!

[Bobafett]

No one will use that resolution, the battery will be dead in 5 crons! Just make a phone thinner and lighter.   

[Marvin starvin]

I mean look at the writer ..sounds to me like china has no inovation if thats all the got

[Danimolio]

the only noticeable difference will be how the battery lasts longer on the lower ppi. At first you had me with this until i saw EVERY other article on this website is used to smear Samsung. Nice journalistic integrity

[Technorust]

China has cornered the market with people who care not for anything except "Me,Myself and I". Some of these comments sound off, like infantile temper tantrums from silver spoon fed momma boys, the I want more peanut gallery!

[Phone guy]

Samsung will do just fine,

[Wil]

Ah I miss when Samsung made higher resolution displays for their lower end devices. I am one of the few people that can tell and it actually makes a massive with because I am nearsighted with ridiculously good nearsight vision. I tried the S22+ for 2 weeks then ended up switching to the S22 Ultra. I am so much happier with the Ultra. I tried measuring the battery life draw difference and it was only a half an hour depending difference max for high resolution 1-120hz to low resolution locked 60hz. Nowhere near the impact as some people think it has. I know with a hundred percent confidence that Samsung probably did consumer tests blind and weighed their options deciding slightly longer battery life and better performance is better for most people, but it sucks for people like me that have young eyesight. At least my S22 Ultra is incredible, best phone I have had in a very long time.

[HW2]

Huh ..???? Note 20 Ultra 5g: Display: 6.9" Screen; 1440 x 3088 = 496 ppi ... Why go anywhere else??