JackClark

http://www.gamebench.net/blog/can-ip...e-1080p-gaming

But the rams, what about the extra rams, how can this be??

An0n0m0us

I think that says it all. Comparing devices with different screen resolutions and saying the one with the lower screen resolution is marginally faster isn't really surprising is it.

I'll take the higher screen res at marginally less frames per second that wont' actually be noticeable to the eye and enjoy the better graphical experience.

Not seen any lag on my Note 4 when playing games so i'd like to see where they think the marginal frame rate makes any noticeable difference between the top end devices.

jonc

Yes but what good is a few more frame rates than the S6 if all your games look like Minecraft in comparion.

JackClark

One more paragraph and you'd have grasped it.

An0n0m0us

The Galaxy Note 4 has a 5.7" display at 2560x1440 with 515 pixels per inch.

The iPhone 6 Plus has a 5.5" display at 1920x1080 with 401 pixels per inch.

I'll stick with my Note 4 thanks

JackClark

That's a small iPad, the iPad is awesome for games.

So which games are running at that resolution? Or is it just good for pictures on websites?

An0n0m0us

How about it's good all the time with a glorious display. I know you just can't accept anyone finding another product superior to your beloved Apple products neither can you accept that some, like me, use a variety of products including Apple and select those products on what's best for them personally as opposed to buying based on brand loyalty.

JackClark

Leave it out, the only reason you're posting is you can't accept anyone finding another product superior.

Littleted

android games i found normally cost more too....which i found weird.

Tidgy

Not and apple gripe here for once lol.

Problem with gaming is if you drop below 30fps you start to see stutter, we see in 21fps and if you get near that you start to pick up on it.

but lets f\ace it, graphics arn't exactly a massvive thing when gaming on a phone lol

dpb

Candy burst is a massive deal in Jacks household

An0n0m0us

No that is what you are like with iphones and always have been and so turning it back at me is laughable.

Beef

This reminds me of comparing the relative performance of the PS4/XBO - in the end it doesn't actually matter what you use, you're getting a below-par gaming experience.

Accept that playing games on a phone is the poor man's way of playing games, that it's going to be horribly compromised, and that arguing over incremental differences is performance between devices is akin merely to choosing what flavour **** sandwich you want.

IMO, the best use of phone gaming is either the casual stuff, or for replaying classic console titles (Zelda, Super Mario, F-Zero, etc), and even with the emulators you really, really need a controller; I tentatively recommend Moga, but while their phone experience is great, I am still disappointed that the controller isn't properly supported in Windows (triggers don't work).

Beef

FTFY, and that's the bare minimum; if I had a TV that could accept 120Hz (or even 72Hz) I'd pick higher framerate every time.

Hmm, no - the human eye doesn't see in 'frames per second', and instead perceives fluidity; higher framerates improve the feeling of fluidity, and this recent trend to 30fps is a cancer to gaming. Examples of how this fluidity is perceptible can be seen here: and here: http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

Tidgy

interesting, only have it explained to me in fps terms

JackClark

Mobile gaming is massive, there's no denying that, yes you can have a space station in your bedroom and get a better experience but in terms of enjoyment I'd wouldn't discount it. Games like Real Racing on iOS and to a lesser extent Android are nothing short of miraculous. You can't brush aside a market that big.

Beef

You misunderstand me. I'm not denying the scale or importance of mobile gaming, however the very nature of mobile gaming means performance of individual devices is basically irrelevant for anything other than *****-waving; games will be designed to be available to the greatest number of users on the widest range of devices, and for users either framerate/graphics aren't important, in which case you don't care, or they are, in which case why are you getting messing around with phones?

JackClark

Isn't it exactly the same story for PC gaming hardware? Surely it's of interest seeing mobile first tech like Metal appear, that's a first I think and of I'm not mistaken very good for games.

Beef

Been busy so not had a chance to reply sooner.

I was giving it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that mobile gaming is the worst of all worlds; it has all the downsides of console gaming in closed ecosystems, all the downsides of PC gaming with no fixed hardware platform, and all the downsides of mobile devices with limited graphical power, and all the downsides of a touchscreen only input controls (by default).

There is an argument that a Windows-only title is locked to the Windows ecosystem, but at least as the owner of the hardware I can choose whether I want to run Linux, Windows or even OSX on my hardware. In the mobile market, if a game isn't available on your platform you have to change not just the OS, but the hardware too.

Fallout Shelter is a good example; if I want to play that at the moment, I have to buy an iOS device; in essence that game now costs a few hundred quid to buy, and no game is worth that much.

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Lower resolution display benchmarks faster than higher resolution shocker.

JackClark

You think any of those games were written with 1440p in mind? Please. 1080p maybe but unlikely. So, in all likelihood they're both playing the game at the resolution, ergo the iPhone rules the gaming roost and isn't far off getting better. Metal for the win.