Google Nexus 10 Review: Is 2560x1600 High-Definition Enough?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

acku

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2010
559
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]Chetou[/nom]I also completely disagree with your display analysis and conclusion. Top ones are clearly better in this direct comparison. iPad has way oversaturated and unrealistic colors and less detail. You would also probably find those store LCDs in over the top demo mode having better picture than a properly calibrated plasma.And this was you main reason for giving it a lower score. Really?![/citation]

I think you misunderstand how we test. Scores are not generated subjectively. We measure gamut percentages with a spectrophotometer. What you're seeing is a subjective comparison. We do not simply 'give scores.' They are inherent to the device. The spectrophotometer is a device used by professionals to measure color performance numerically.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
So compare between a screen that shows more natural colours or one that dialed up colour vibrance 5 notches to high making the images look fabricated I personally stick with the more natural image of the top of each screen shot -> That is assuming the camera / camera settings are up to the task to represent each of them as shown.

Also like PerferLinux said - A 3'rd image with the original would really have helped to see how "processed" the image is in each of the devices.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
2 years ago when i bought my 24" monitor i was looking for a decent 27" with higher than 1080p res, now we get 2560x1600 res on a stupid 10" thing ... i don`t get the monitor manufacturers at all....
 

TheMadFapper

Honorable
Oct 18, 2012
170
0
10,690
1
Where is the 4th gen iPad? Did you guys forget about the A6X or we you just trying to make the Nexus look good? Ipad 4: "It uses an integrated quad-core PowerVR SGX 554MP4 graphics processing unit (GPU) running at 300 MHz and a doubled memory subsystem, the result is twice the computing power and graphics performance as the previous Apple A5X processor found in the third-generation iPad."

I grabbed that puppy for less than 500 and it blows all of these tablets out of the water. Do I like Apple? No, of course not, they rip people off. But it is the fastest tablet in the land last I checked.
 

TheMadFapper

Honorable
Oct 18, 2012
170
0
10,690
1
P.S. - the scores don't reflect what we first saw when benchmarks first arrived for the Nexus 10. What kind of software improvements were implemented? That would be nice to know, because apparently out of the blue it's running just as fast as an iPad 4th gen, so I'll have to slightly retract what I said earlier, but you still purposely left it out of the tests.
 
Decent review in terms of data. (tomshardware strength)

Although, I'm not sure why they are so disappointed. I agree it needs a better GPU to power things like webpages and colors could be better, but it is $100 cheaper than a iPad. Also, I'm not confined to Apple store. For many people that's a godsend.

As far as competition, I bought an iPad for my girlfriend and she loves it. I too enjoy it, but it doesn't allow me to move files around as easily as my Nexus 7 so I assume the Nexus 10 is easy too.
 

Chetou

Distinguished
Feb 17, 2007
61
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]acku[/nom]I think you misunderstand how we test. Scores are not generated subjectively. We measure gamut percentages with a spectrophotometer. What you're seeing is a subjective comparison. We do not simply 'give scores.' They are inherent to the device. The spectrophotometer is a device used by professionals to measure color performance numerically.[/citation]

If those pictures are representative of the actual performance, which I presume is true if you posted them as proof of the difference in quality, then it doesn't really matter what your numbers show. Besides, gamut percentage is useless by itself. If you wanted to show an objective, quantifiable measure of quality, you should have posted dE numbers of the colors rendered.
 

maddad

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2006
179
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]RealityClash[/nom]I really don't understand what they have against this tablet?Decent battery life, powerful processor, $100 cheaper than an iPad, great display (colour difference between this and the iPad would be unnoticeable in most cases unless they were be readily compared next to each other). Are you guys at Tom's all just Apple fanboys or something?[/citation]
Yet another if you don't kiss Google's butt like I do you are an Apple fanboy comment! I have been reading Tom's for well over a decade; and though they have always primarily been a "PC" (as in Windows) site, their articles have always been fair and objective no matter who the hardware manufacturer is. Tom's sticks to the facts as they see them from the tests and comparisons they perform. They have advertisers, but advertisers do not have them. Now I don't own any Google or Apple products, and I doubt you have ever used any Apple products either, since you don't seem to have any objective view at all. The fanboy accusations always mean "you" are the fanboy yourself!
 
It was a good review, thanks a lot.

I'd like to ask you guys for an additional set of tests if you guys can find the time to do them.

Video playback quality tests. Also, recording and camera testing if you can. I know these are not SLR's, but they do have a camera and I'd like to know how they stack up between each other.

Cheers!
 
As for the picture comparisons. I have a hard time saying one is better than the other. You guys seemed to have looked at them and picked the one with the more deep colors, but to me, the Nexus pictures had what appears to be more realistic colors.

However, without actually seeing the real life subjects of the pictures, it is hard to say which is more accurate.
 

retrophe

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
51
0
18,630
0
Hey Tom's, Why don't you use Epic Citadel for a comparison as well?

[citation][nom]Traciatim[/nom]All I want to know is: Where the heck are all the 2560x1600 20 - 24" screens for desktops?[/citation]

^This and make it a reasonable price. There is no valid excuse.
 

bavman

Distinguished
May 19, 2010
1,006
0
19,360
46
"We aren't labeling these pictures so that you evaluate them without the previous page's results in mind. Which tablet looks the best to you? Scroll to the bottom of the page if you want to know which is which."

Too bad the aspect ratio gives it off right off the bat anyways
 

TheMadFapper

Honorable
Oct 18, 2012
170
0
10,690
1
Not to be a jerk here but I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the iPad 4th gen with the A6X processor wasn't included. I want to see those numbers!!! It's like you're comparing a 2013 Lamborghini to a 2010 Ferrari, when a 2013 Ferrari does indeed exist, and is faster than its 2010 predecessor.
 

phate

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
149
0
18,680
0
Oversaturated images, lower resolution and 10% better battery life all for only a 25% price premium? Sign me up for an iPad!

People wouldn't complain about an Apple bias on here if you guys were just a little more subtle about it.

Or just say "Yolo! iPhone and iPad FTW!" or something at the beginning of your articles so we can calibrate our expectations appropriately.
 

cirdecus

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2008
655
2
19,165
66
Many of these iPad competitors don't seem to meet the quality craftsmanship of the iPad from a hardware perspective.

I love how the above paragraph seems to ignore this quality:

"The Nexus 10 is well-built. The plastic case features...

Really? A plastic case means well-built? It's like the Galaxy S3, a flimsy plastic exterior to save money and desperately try to undercut the cost of the iPad.
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
2,372
6
19,815
20
I like this tablet but the whole thing is disgusting. Why are desktop monitors still stuck at 1920x1080 and anything approaching this resolution is way expensive. On a larger screen the pixels are much further apart thus production cost should be much lower than on these tiny devices.
 

redeye

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2005
225
0
18,710
9
excuse me, but one can not buy the iPad anymore from apple... why are you reviewing a "new" product against a dead product?... and why didn't this review get released at the introduction of the nexus 10? ... why not compare the nexus 10 to the iPad one?... the ipad 1 or the ipad 3 are only available on ebay!... so why against the original iPad...the nexus 10 would look Absolutely amazing Against the iPad one!...

Also you say that would not be a fair comparison?... but you can't buy the iPad one or the iPad 3 so the comparison is the same !.. so How is the review accurate? IT IS NOT!

so why did Did you compare it to any iPad ?... Tom's hardware has done a review where you don't compare to anything else but its own models... so why did you decide to use an old model against the Nexus 10?...


TL;DR /rant ... The only way this article would've been accurate is that if it was Published five months ago...
 

hixbot

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2007
818
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]Traciatim[/nom]All I want to know is: Where the heck are all the 2560x1600 20 - 24" screens for desktops?[/citation]
Yeah if they can fit 2560x1600 on a 10" screen we should see double that on a 20-24" monitor.
 

cirdecus

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2008
655
2
19,165
66
[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]I like this tablet but the whole thing is disgusting. Why are desktop monitors still stuck at 1920x1080 and anything approaching this resolution is way expensive. On a larger screen the pixels are much further apart thus production cost should be much lower than on these tiny devices.[/citation]

I think the main reasons are that:

1) The market is red hot with competition, which is pushing the display quality in these things to the extreme.
2) The closer you are to the display, the higher the resolution needs to hide the pixels. A "retina" display is just a term for a display that has a resolution so high, the pixels cannot be seen by the human eye. This is largely dependent on how far the human eye is from the display, so a retina display that is meant to be viewed 15 feet away is no longer considered retina when the user moves to 10 feet away (same display resolution). Mobile displays, such as phones and tablets assume the user will be within close proximity (closer than a desktop user), so in order to have the highest quality "retina" display, manufacturer's are having to move into these super high resolutions. A desktop monitor is typically viewed from a farther distance, so the display can be considered "retina" with a much lower resolution.
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
263
1
18,780
0
[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]I like this tablet but the whole thing is disgusting. Why are desktop monitors still stuck at 1920x1080 and anything approaching this resolution is way expensive. On a larger screen the pixels are much further apart thus production cost should be much lower than on these tiny devices.[/citation]Lol? Next you're going to tell me 70" HDTVs should be cheaper than 32" since the pixels are farther apart?

Larger panels = more expensive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY