I thought that they were crystal clear the iPhone 7 has the best LCD screen to date, while Samsung has the best OLED screen to date?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wouldn't dare buy an iPhone 7
- Thread starter freepomme
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People also constantly forget about the Apple Watch in these discussions. I think it's an actual tangible example of what Apple can do with these displays. And I think it looks great.
[doublepost=1474656611][/doublepost]
I just glanced through the reviews side by side. I may have missed something.
The Samsung manufactured AMOLED displays are hands down best in class. If Apple doesn't buy the displays from Samsung, then they won't be using the best AMOLED displays.
Here's a screen of the note 7 review. I'm saying that since no such claims are being made about the iPhone 7, it's reasonable to conclude the note 7 screen is superior occurring to displaymate.
[doublepost=1474657075][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1474657075][/doublepost]
See above.
...Not if Apple has worked with another supplier for their own manufacturing line. They invested a huge amount in Japan Supply recently, and I think they have a partnership with Samsung Display as well. But it's important to remember that when Apple pairs with a manufacturer they go all the way down to the point of purchasing and sometimes actually developing the machinery needed to produce the component to the exact specifications they want.
Comparing off the shelf Samsung displays wouldn't be a a good comparison, as we know that Apple for years has made extensive use of customizations to existing manufacturing tech.
But yes, Samsung currently is the best supplier, I don't think there's any disputing that.
[doublepost=1474657952][/doublepost]
Thanks for looking into that, my question though was related to timing. Wasn't that review done before the iPhone 7 came out? I don't review DisplayMate often at all so I'm unfamiliar with their process, do they ever update reviews after the fact?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Note 7 still comes out on top, but I'm interested in the overall timeline mostly.
What I am saying is that the iPhone 7 review made no claims of being the best screen ever tested. As such it is safe to assume that the note 7 still holds that title.
Well you are wrong about that. This isn't about a specification. These displays are made of organic light emitting diodes. If any other manufacturer had the manufacturing technology that Samsung does to make AMOLED/OLED displays of the same quality as Samsung can, they would be doing it. But they don't and they can't.
You obviously don't understand why Samsung's displays are best in class. It is not something that Apple has any ability to change.
Bear in mind these terms.. "retina".. "high definition".. these are just marketing terms. I personally think "HD" is one of the most damaging terms that we've had put upon us because it makes us think that "HD" is the ultimate gold-standard, and it's not. "Retina" is just a term that Jobs came up with holding a certain screen size a certain distance from his face and looking at the pixels. There's also a "Retina 4K" and a "Retina 5K" display too.
I work in IT and sit in front of terminal screens all day. A couple of months ago, I sprung for a big video card and dual UHD monitors at 2160p. I cannot tell you how much better my life is. I never thought it would matter, having all that extra resolution. Holy buckets, it is a dream for my eyeballs to scan a big piece of code now. I love it.
Honestly, it's very surprising to me that the iPhone 7 does not have a full HD display.
I work in IT and sit in front of terminal screens all day. A couple of months ago, I sprung for a big video card and dual UHD monitors at 2160p. I cannot tell you how much better my life is. I never thought it would matter, having all that extra resolution. Holy buckets, it is a dream for my eyeballs to scan a big piece of code now. I love it.
Honestly, it's very surprising to me that the iPhone 7 does not have a full HD display.
Hmm, best re-evaluate what you know!
Samsung displays might look better. But the colours are just so artificially inflated to make it all look vibrant. It's like something off a cartoon. Quite apt, seeing as they're running operating systems like "Chocolate Biscuit" and "Gumdrop Forest". Side to side, you'd be forgiven for thinking the Samsung ones stand out more, because they do. However, this isn't necessarily a good thing.
Apple concentrate on stuff I'd say is more important. Colour balance. Accurate representation of colours. It's the same with their Macs. The balance on their displays are absolutely gorgeous. Yet somebody will point to an HP laptop with a 4K display and say "oh, that's a better display". Based on brightness, or just specs on paper with the amount of pixels.
You get a lot of people judging from numbers alone. Mainly why a lot of Samsung fans perspire about the hardware specs, without knowing or appreciating what effect they have in real-world scenarios. More RAM. More cores. More megahertz. More PPI. More megapixels. The reality is completely different.
"But the colours are just so artificially inflated to make it all look vibrant"
Yup. One look at a Samsung tablet or phone and it's obvious that it's over-saturated. It's also obvious that Samsung knows it's customers will think it looks better based on just that.
The 6, 6s, and 7 all have the same 750p resolution. That was never hidden.
The Plus has a larger screen, so having a 750p display on a larger screen means the individual pixels are bigger.
The resolution and pixel density didn't change between the 6s and 7. What changed is the color gamut and quality of the display. Apple never said these were the best they could be on the 6s.
Starting with the iPhone 6, all iPhone retina screens are retina HD.
Again, the resolution has not changed between the 7 and 6s. It's purely a marketing name. Also if you read into it, the whole "retina being the most the eye can see thing" is assuming an average distance of several inches. If you look closer, you can see pixels, this can still be improved on.
It's 1080p because it's a 0.7" larger screen.
No argument there.
Good grief, the resolution war is something bordering on the ridiculous. Do we need a 4K display on something the size of a 5/6 inch phone? No, not even a little bit. A 70" Television, yes certainly, but not so much on a teeny tiny little phone. It's just another number race to lure in people who don't know any better and just see that there's a higher number so therefore it must be better. Well if you fall for that nonsense, need I say more.
Will Apple eventually do the same and up their resolution and proclaim it's the best thing ever? Probably but in reality it will be to put an end to the numbers war so that the competition is not perceived as more advanced, not because it's inherently better.
There's far, far more to a good quality display than mere pixel count alone. In fact for a quality reproduction of an image, text or otherwise, once the resolution gets beyond about 300ppi the resolution becomes one of the least important things.
Let's put it this way. Grab a phone, any phone you like doesn't matter who makes it, that has a screen with at least 300ppi and open, lets say a book on it, or even a web page. Ok, you've done that? good. Now zoom in as far as you can on the text, really get right in there push as far as you possibly can. Now look very closely at what's on the screen, see all of those nasty jagged edges on the curved letters. Or horrible blurring where the software is trying to smooth out what's on the screen. No? None of that? All nice and crisp and clear? Well then the resolution is perfectly fine.
Granted there's something to be said for more pixels allowing for such things as better gradation in photos for example, but again there's a very real limit on those improvements imposed by the size of the screen in the first place.
The ability for a screen to reproduce accurate colours, provide a high contrast ratio and so on will have a far more visible and overall visually appealing effect than the resolution alone. Nonetheless such arguments over mines is bigger than yours, yeah but mines gives more pleasure than yours, will rage on forever. Some of us will always be lured in by the numbers game regardless of which aspect it's applied to. We fall for the gimmicks and the fancy advertising that tells us we can't be without whatever shiny new thing the manufacturer is trying to peddle. While some of us will simply
and instead take pleasure in enjoying the higher quality of the device we have chosen based on actual real world benefits.......
...... And occasionally waffle on about it on forums because we enjoy a good debate and our morphine has kicked in
Will Apple eventually do the same and up their resolution and proclaim it's the best thing ever? Probably but in reality it will be to put an end to the numbers war so that the competition is not perceived as more advanced, not because it's inherently better.
There's far, far more to a good quality display than mere pixel count alone. In fact for a quality reproduction of an image, text or otherwise, once the resolution gets beyond about 300ppi the resolution becomes one of the least important things.
Let's put it this way. Grab a phone, any phone you like doesn't matter who makes it, that has a screen with at least 300ppi and open, lets say a book on it, or even a web page. Ok, you've done that? good. Now zoom in as far as you can on the text, really get right in there push as far as you possibly can. Now look very closely at what's on the screen, see all of those nasty jagged edges on the curved letters. Or horrible blurring where the software is trying to smooth out what's on the screen. No? None of that? All nice and crisp and clear? Well then the resolution is perfectly fine.
Granted there's something to be said for more pixels allowing for such things as better gradation in photos for example, but again there's a very real limit on those improvements imposed by the size of the screen in the first place.
The ability for a screen to reproduce accurate colours, provide a high contrast ratio and so on will have a far more visible and overall visually appealing effect than the resolution alone. Nonetheless such arguments over mines is bigger than yours, yeah but mines gives more pleasure than yours, will rage on forever. Some of us will always be lured in by the numbers game regardless of which aspect it's applied to. We fall for the gimmicks and the fancy advertising that tells us we can't be without whatever shiny new thing the manufacturer is trying to peddle. While some of us will simply
and instead take pleasure in enjoying the higher quality of the device we have chosen based on actual real world benefits............. And occasionally waffle on about it on forums because we enjoy a good debate and our morphine has kicked in
Here's the thing: Samsung and Apple displays kick booty.
Anyone that claims otherwise is a branded troll. There is a setting for natural colors on the Samsung phones, so oversaturation isn't a problem anymore. On the flip side, resolution doesn't matter past 300ppi - 400ppi (depending on your screen size). Can you see any pixels during normal use of your iPhone? If not (and you can't), there's no reason to get a higher resolution display. If anything, you'd be slowing down your phone and using more battery if you did.
For those that can't test, go to an Apple Store, watch this video and then tell me you need more pixels. Use the YouTube app for best results.
Anyone that claims otherwise is a branded troll. There is a setting for natural colors on the Samsung phones, so oversaturation isn't a problem anymore. On the flip side, resolution doesn't matter past 300ppi - 400ppi (depending on your screen size). Can you see any pixels during normal use of your iPhone? If not (and you can't), there's no reason to get a higher resolution display. If anything, you'd be slowing down your phone and using more battery if you did.
For those that can't test, go to an Apple Store, watch this video and then tell me you need more pixels. Use the YouTube app for best results.
Last edited:
Ok I just traded my exploding Note 7 for a iPhone 6S PLUS So I'm going to throw in my two cents here about the display.
First let say that as far as black level goes no LCD screens is going to touch and AMOLED display. That's a fact of life. With that being said, I am pleasantly surprised by how good the iPhones black levels actually are.
Now to move forward to the other areas and this is just my opinion.
I do find looking at photos slightly more pleasant on my iPhone. They are certainly more natural looking than how they appear on the Note. The AMOLED display is flashy and punchy which does look fantastic but it doesn't accuracy portray real world colors.
1080p vs 2k. I honestly cannot tell one bit off difference in resolution on these devices. With the exception of VR I see no reason for a resolution higher than 1080p on a screen this size.
Viewing angles. The iPhone screen does really well in this area and like the black levels I was pleasantly surprised. Is it as good as AMOLED in this regard? No absolutely not but it's good enough that complaining about it is moot.
Brightness. Note 7 wins this no contest.
Reflections. This has more to do with the glass coating that the screen itself but the Note 7 was way better in this regard. Don't know about the iPhone 7.
Overall while I find the iPhone display great, the note 7 is still a better display. Color accuracy I'm assuming is something that the manufacturer can tune to what they want and I'm sure the first AMOLED display on iPhone will be tuned to Apple's standards just the same.
First let say that as far as black level goes no LCD screens is going to touch and AMOLED display. That's a fact of life. With that being said, I am pleasantly surprised by how good the iPhones black levels actually are.
Now to move forward to the other areas and this is just my opinion.
I do find looking at photos slightly more pleasant on my iPhone. They are certainly more natural looking than how they appear on the Note. The AMOLED display is flashy and punchy which does look fantastic but it doesn't accuracy portray real world colors.
1080p vs 2k. I honestly cannot tell one bit off difference in resolution on these devices. With the exception of VR I see no reason for a resolution higher than 1080p on a screen this size.
Viewing angles. The iPhone screen does really well in this area and like the black levels I was pleasantly surprised. Is it as good as AMOLED in this regard? No absolutely not but it's good enough that complaining about it is moot.
Brightness. Note 7 wins this no contest.
Reflections. This has more to do with the glass coating that the screen itself but the Note 7 was way better in this regard. Don't know about the iPhone 7.
Overall while I find the iPhone display great, the note 7 is still a better display. Color accuracy I'm assuming is something that the manufacturer can tune to what they want and I'm sure the first AMOLED display on iPhone will be tuned to Apple's standards just the same.
The Note7 display is less oversaturated than the Note5. Personally, I prefer the Note5 display.
[doublepost=1474664930][/doublepost]
But even so, the Note7's display is still less saturated than the Note5's.
[doublepost=1474665441][/doublepost]
I thought that too until I saw my Note5's QHD display.
[doublepost=1474665523][/doublepost]
You can adjust that somewhat in the settings now.
I've had no shortage of experience with many higher resolution screens, of course there's no denying that they look nice, that's a given. My point was simply that beyond a certain resolution there's just diminishing returns to a degree.
If all on-screen objects are clear, sharp and well defined even when zoomed right in. Then the resolution of the screen, on any device, is perfectly acceptable.
Things like 4K screens are definitely included on devices as much for the marketing aspect of having a high resolution than anything else. When you consider the hit the device can take on performance and such, you can see the logic in using lower ppi screens which still provide a perfectly clear image to the human eye. Just think how much more powerful those 4K devices could be if they didn't have to throw around so many extra pixels.
Don't get me wrong, if my next device has a 4K screen I'm not going to complain. But I'd likewise not complain if it had a really good quality 1080p screen.
There is that too I couldn't be bothered doing a full list of every pro and con, I waffle enough as it is, so I settled for and suchlike
More pixels =
1) battery drain
2) need more RAM to push pixels
3) more overall CPU power (cores etc)
This is why a quad or octa core CPU with 4gb or RAM can still stutter and lag badly like many Android devices do at some point.
Sure, some of it is the Android coding, but a lot is the ridiculous screen resolutions. The Plus has 2,073,600 pixels. The Note 7 has 3,686,400 pixels. That's a LOT more pixels to push around on the battery and CPU/GPU.
This is why the iPhone has done so well with only a dual core processor and smaller capacity batteries in performance, overall smoothness of the UI, and battery life per mah of battery (Android devices require a LOT bigger capacity batteries to match the iPhone)
1) battery drain
2) need more RAM to push pixels
3) more overall CPU power (cores etc)
This is why a quad or octa core CPU with 4gb or RAM can still stutter and lag badly like many Android devices do at some point.
Sure, some of it is the Android coding, but a lot is the ridiculous screen resolutions. The Plus has 2,073,600 pixels. The Note 7 has 3,686,400 pixels. That's a LOT more pixels to push around on the battery and CPU/GPU.
This is why the iPhone has done so well with only a dual core processor and smaller capacity batteries in performance, overall smoothness of the UI, and battery life per mah of battery (Android devices require a LOT bigger capacity batteries to match the iPhone)
Samsung's OLED screens look excellent (assuming you get one with good unjformity), but two things need to happen for OLED panels to overtake IPS LCD entirely:
-Full RGB displays. Pentile is a waste of CPU/GPU resources for a less than advertised resolution.
-Stop using PWM (flicker) dimming. Its irritating to the eyes and it makes the display visibly unstable at <50% brightness.
Despite popular opinion, color calibration is no longer an issue (assuming you use the basic color profile).
Better yet, get micro-LED production going and skip OLED enitrely. Less burn-in concerns, at least in theory.
I generally agree with your post, but i wanted to mention a couple situations where >300 ppi actually does have an impact:
-Very small text is more readable on the OLED screens. Generally you only see this on desktop sites, but I've heard that Asian characters are also more readable (they tend to have very small details).
-Extremely high physical pixel density allows you to render any LOWER resolution on the display without visible loss of quality. What I mean is:
720 rendered on 1080 screen looks much worse than a native 720 display because of antialiasing blur...
BUT 720 rendered on a 4k screen is virtually indistinguishable from a native 720 display because the AA can be done at 4k resolution. There's very little cost to high res full screen AA.
So a super high PPI display allows you to get high quality at any resolution, letting the user decide between increased fidelity and lower lower power usage.
-Full RGB displays. Pentile is a waste of CPU/GPU resources for a less than advertised resolution.
-Stop using PWM (flicker) dimming. Its irritating to the eyes and it makes the display visibly unstable at <50% brightness.
Despite popular opinion, color calibration is no longer an issue (assuming you use the basic color profile).
Better yet, get micro-LED production going and skip OLED enitrely. Less burn-in concerns, at least in theory.
I generally agree with your post, but i wanted to mention a couple situations where >300 ppi actually does have an impact:
-Very small text is more readable on the OLED screens. Generally you only see this on desktop sites, but I've heard that Asian characters are also more readable (they tend to have very small details).
-Extremely high physical pixel density allows you to render any LOWER resolution on the display without visible loss of quality. What I mean is:
720 rendered on 1080 screen looks much worse than a native 720 display because of antialiasing blur...
BUT 720 rendered on a 4k screen is virtually indistinguishable from a native 720 display because the AA can be done at 4k resolution. There's very little cost to high res full screen AA.
So a super high PPI display allows you to get high quality at any resolution, letting the user decide between increased fidelity and lower lower power usage.
Last edited: