cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Galaxy s7 (4k screen)

omega53
Explorer
What do you guys think the odds of the S7 being compatible with the Gear VR are? If it ends up using the SnapDragon 820, I can see a bunch of issues arising. I dream of a 4k VR experience and hope the S7 fulfills it... Rumor is the S7 will launch in March.
28 REPLIES 28

mduffor
Protege
"munkondi" wrote:
"mduffor" wrote:
At this point in time, a 4k screen would be horrible for the GearVR. The current processors simply can't fill that many pixels. The next generation needs to focus on rendering rock-solid 60fps with more polys and less heat. Then when that is under control, we need foveated rendering, which will require support at the GPU and OpenGL level. Then once foveated rendering is working, you can bring in the 4k screens where you render high pixel density directly where your eyeball is looking, and have a lower res rendering for the rest of the 4k pixels, and not cause the entire thing to burst into flames on your face, or run at the speed of a potatoe.

Cheers,
mduffor


what absolute tech babble tosh, a 4k screen would work fine, the new processors (even the ones rumoured for the S7) are rated already way more powerful than the previous generation and could comfortably run VR in 4k
I'm sure Samsung developers and engineers will know perfectly what can or can't be done this year or the next

people forget that it's not the apps and experience in the phones that will dictate the upgrade path, but what can be achieved with the new pro/consumer 360 cameras

The S7 is using Qualcomm's Snapdragon 820, as opposed to S6's Exynos 7420. The 820 is around 15% faster in the single core CPU tests, and around 5% slower in multi-core CPU tests. It should run cooler than the Exynos 7420, but it won't be significantly faster.

The S6's screen runs at 2560×1440 pixels. The Xperia z5 Premium runs at 3840×2160, so not really double the "2K" screen. Still, the GPU will have to push through 2.25 times the number of pixels, maintain 60fps rendered in two eyes, and not overheat. The Snapdragon 820 isn't going to be able to pull that off.

The Xperia z5 Premium is running the Snapdragon 810, which is slower than the 820 and has a lot more overheating issues due to its rushed design. So even though the 820 is supposed to be around 54% faster than the 810, we're still not talking 30fps video playback (with hardware assist) but rather 60fps x 2 viewports x 100k textured polygons that we have to concern ourselves with.

If you know of some "tech babble tosh" that I'm not taking into account, please enlighten me. I'm looking forward to the day when mobile devices can drive VR on the 11k screens that Samsung is working on for 2020, but here in 2016 we're just not quite fast enough.

Cheers,
mduffor

Zico
Honored Guest
I agree.

Games are important but passive content for now has the biggest the potential.

4K screen will improve the image quality and will make viewing content more enjoyable.

I do accept that there is a technology issue but that's something which Sony has already sorted out. I don't think Samsung will be far behind.

Samsung and Oculus have created the best mobile experience to date but they can't afford to stand still.

The rest of the pack are now coming in fast.

4K screen is a must.

incodeveritas
Honored Guest
Anyone have a sense of the timescale to a usable 4k display in VR?

mosley
Honored Guest
"HomerS66" wrote:
"mosley" wrote:
for mainstream phone use, todays processors seem to work just fine with 4k, as demonstrated by sony.



Wrong the Xperia Z5 premium can only do 4k in videos and in pictures but in nothing else, not even the UI is in 4k but only 1080p and therefore less than on S6/S6edge.
The games are often not even in 1080p but 720p and then get upscalled. We are far away from games in 4k and far far away from games in stereo 4k with VR distortion and headtracking.
In 2017 we get maybe when we are lucky 1440p graphics upscalled to 4k and in 2018 if we are lucky 4k rendered VR games.


well, but doesnt that prove my point? its exactly what i said - dont use 4k where unrealistic (gaming etc), use where appropriate and doable. sure we are far away from 4k gaming on a mobile, you dont need to lecture anyone on this any further, we all know. but heres the truly relevant question:

how far away are we from, say, a 4k picture viewer? how far away are we from games-rendered-at-same-resolution-as-today, just with the added CPU load for upscaling?

thats the real question here. cause, regardless of how implemented, a 4k screen would by default reduce the screen door problem enourmously, no matter whether its showing upscaled or true 4k content. and i do believe that a 4k picture viewer could be within reach even for headtracked VR. might be close, but surely doesnt sound impossible. and i *definetly* am sure that upscaling to a 4k screen would be doable at this point. upscaling is not *that* CPU intensive, id be willing to bet that the extra oomph of the next CPU generation alone might be enough for the added load, but worst case, you simplify the graphics a bit and use that to upscale. either way: thats not nearly as impossible as it sounds when one only talks about true 4k game rendering. once and for all: noone is expecting true 4k rendering of games at this point. we are talking about upscaled versions of what we have now, plus maybe the occasional true 4k experience for the few cases where it might already be in reach. like picture viewers, potentially.

i mean, just imagine how much a picture viewer would profit from 4k by simple upscaling (anyone wanna argue that it would cost too much CPU to upscale static pictures?) - let alone true 4k.

and to think of that reduced screen door...yummy 🙂 personally, im not bothered at all by the current resolution of rendered graphics, be it the cinema (which i find surprisingly convincing even at the "low" resolution its rendered at) or something more abstract like viral or other games that use blocky graphics but declare it an art form. im totally fine with that. its only the screen door that rubs the resolution problem right in. get rid of that, and id be happy to play VGA-ish retro games all day long 🙂

Toss3
Honored Guest
"mduffor" wrote:
"munkondi" wrote:
"mduffor" wrote:
At this point in time, a 4k screen would be horrible for the GearVR. The current processors simply can't fill that many pixels. The next generation needs to focus on rendering rock-solid 60fps with more polys and less heat. Then when that is under control, we need foveated rendering, which will require support at the GPU and OpenGL level. Then once foveated rendering is working, you can bring in the 4k screens where you render high pixel density directly where your eyeball is looking, and have a lower res rendering for the rest of the 4k pixels, and not cause the entire thing to burst into flames on your face, or run at the speed of a potatoe.

Cheers,
mduffor


what absolute tech babble tosh, a 4k screen would work fine, the new processors (even the ones rumoured for the S7) are rated already way more powerful than the previous generation and could comfortably run VR in 4k
I'm sure Samsung developers and engineers will know perfectly what can or can't be done this year or the next

people forget that it's not the apps and experience in the phones that will dictate the upgrade path, but what can be achieved with the new pro/consumer 360 cameras

The S7 is using Qualcomm's Snapdragon 820, as opposed to S6's Exynos 7420. The 820 is around 15% faster in the single core CPU tests, and around 5% slower in multi-core CPU tests. It should run cooler than the Exynos 7420, but it won't be significantly faster.

The S6's screen runs at 2560×1440 pixels. The Xperia z5 Premium runs at 3840×2160, so not really double the "2K" screen. Still, the GPU will have to push through 2.25 times the number of pixels, maintain 60fps rendered in two eyes, and not overheat. The Snapdragon 820 isn't going to be able to pull that off.

The Xperia z5 Premium is running the Snapdragon 810, which is slower than the 820 and has a lot more overheating issues due to its rushed design. So even though the 820 is supposed to be around 54% faster than the 810, we're still not talking 30fps video playback (with hardware assist) but rather 60fps x 2 viewports x 100k textured polygons that we have to concern ourselves with.

If you know of some "tech babble tosh" that I'm not taking into account, please enlighten me. I'm looking forward to the day when mobile devices can drive VR on the 11k screens that Samsung is working on for 2020, but here in 2016 we're just not quite fast enough.

Cheers,
mduffor


It's not just the 820, but 8890 as well which is significantly faster and more power efficient than the 7420. And it's the GPU that does the heavy lifting and not the CPU-part of the SoC (so being slower in multi-threaded apps isn't really a problem). And the cinema is 42k polygons, not 100k: "As a point of reference, the "cinema" theater mesh has a polycount of 42,000 tris.".

BlazeHN
Honored Guest
Do you know what I would like? Say a Note 6 with 4k resolution screen BUT displaying everything at 1080 all the time outside VR world or media content (UI, normal games, etc) that way would have lots of processing power and battery life, then when you put the Gear in it will still do 1080p but upscaled so you will have smaller pixels and most likely have none or very little pixelation. Is there anything wrong with that?

nosys70
Expert Protege
VR headset developpers will go the easy way like cpu/memory developpers have done it.
when the hardware reach the limits, just double it, then quadruple it.
in the case of VR headset it even solve several problems at once, more power, more pixels, wider FOV.
you will get better result with two S5 than with one S7 (just an example) for probably same price.
Also a nice way to extend the life of a product that already gave its ROI.

I don't believe 4k is needed.
Big PC, all the headsets, now using Quest 3

zproxy
Expert Protege
5K screen is in the lab. i expect that instead.