| burninmylight said: Yes, you are that much in the minority. I think about this sort of thing every day, about how different forum life is from real life. Yes, I can recally the backlash the Xbone got for being weaker than the PS4 on the geeky video game sites. Out here in these streets? No one gives a damn. |
I beg to differ. It's common knowledge even in non-tech orientated households that the Playstation 4 is technically superior to the Xbox One, they don't understand the jargon or by how much, just that it's faster, better and looks prettier.
Plus enthusiasts and tech-literate gamers do count in the millions you know.
| Miyamotoo said: Again, if we talk about games doesnt matter fact that phones or tablets have 1080p or 1440p resolution, because game's doesnt use it, games on phones or tablets dont run at native resolution, you will hardly find any game that runs at higher resolution than 720p in any case despite screen is 1440p. |
You do not need a game to run at a native resolution to see gains from it.
| Miyamotoo said: Of Course there is excuse for 720p compared to 1080p, and thats battery life, Switch battery life would be even shorter if screen is 1080p because you would need GPU to run at much higher clock, and 1080p resolution screen use more power than 720p screen. |
No. And again there are plenty of prior examples where a higher resolution display has actually used less energy than a lower resolution display. Go take a look at Samsungs own transition from 1080P panels to 1440P panels in it's flagships. You might learn something.
Panel technology and backlight technology has an overall larger influence on battery life than pixel counts.
Besides, if power consumption was such a massive concern *rolls eyes* Nintendo would have chosen a more energy efficient chip. Like I dunno. A Pascal based Tegra maybe?
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
