Huawei boss says 2K displays are a waste! Do you agree?

Speaking on Weibo, Huawei head honcho Yu Chengdong has spoken out against the use of 2K displays and how they are a ‘waste’.

Huawei have long stood against the use of 2K displays on phones stating that it’s not necessary to use such a high resolution on a mobile device and that the higher res would effect battery life and performance.

Huawei aren’t alone either, as many smartphone users agree including myself. While 2K might sound great on a spec sheet or when bragging to friends, there really isn’t much of a need (I was this as a daily user of a Vivo Xplay 5 and OP2).

Earlier today though Huawei boss Yu Chengdong has gone a step further saying that 2K screens are a waste. He goes on to post that a good HD screen can be good (using the iPhone as an example) and that a 1080 panel is more than good enough.

Gizchina News of the week

Join GizChina on Telegram

Although the company does feel that 2K screens aren’t worth adding to phones it doesn’t mean that we won’t see more 2K Huawei phones in the future. In the same Weibo post Yu also admitted that ‘enthusiasts’ wan’t 2K phones which could lead to more 2K devices going on sale rather than being a beneficial feature.

What are your thoughts on this? Are 2K displays a waste in a mobile application? Are you happy to stick with 1080 FHD? Or do you want to see other screen innovations rather than just higher resolutions?

Disclaimer: We may be compensated by some of the companies whose products we talk about, but our articles and reviews are always our honest opinions. For more details, you can check out our editorial guidelines and learn about how we use affiliate links.

About the author
Andi

Having never seen or used one. I have nothing to add to the ensuing debacle!
TheOracle
May 2, 2016
I agree. A waste. No, in fact it’s an unnecessary gimmick just like super thin phones. 1080p is the perfect balance for battery life and quality on my 5.5″ phone. To be honest a good 720p screen is still adequate.
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  - TheOracle
    May 2, 2016
    - balcobomber25
      May 2, 2016
      - TheOracle
        May 2, 2016
        Everything is subjective in this case. The point is that thin phones are impractical due to their woefully inadequate batteries.
        So you would throw Kim Kardashian out of bed? What’s that old joke again? “I wouldn’t allow her in my bed. I’d do her on the floor!” lol
        
        balcobomber25
        May 2, 2016
        I wouldn’t allow that pig in my bed in the first place.
        Two phones:
        A. Moto X Play, 10.9mm 3650mAh
        B. Xiaomi Redmi Note 3, 8.7mm 4000mAh.
        You were saying something about thicker phones having bigger batteries?
        TheOracle
        May 2, 2016
        Typing this on my Redmi Note 3 Pro actually. I’m talking about that trend a couple of years ago when it was getting into the 6mm range. Ridiculous.
        Fyi my Zenfone 2 feels much thinner than this one because of the curved back. It’s razor thin at the sides, where most people actually hold their phones.
        
        balcobomber25
        May 2, 2016
        My favorite phone ever was my Gionee 5.5 (5.5mm).
        TheOracle
        May 2, 2016
        I remember that phone. 16gb of storage without an sd slot and a 2300mah battery! I considered it and ended up buying the Lenovo K910 Vibe Z. Same crappy storage but a 3000mah battery. I Loved that phone. How times have changed. Wouldn’t even consider it today.
        balcobomber25
        May 2, 2016
        For me 16gb is decent storage and battery for me depends on the processor, resolution and display type. There’s more to battery life than mAh.
        TheOracle
        May 2, 2016
        I hear you. I bought the K910 for the pentaband wcdma frequencies, which was a rarity then for dual-sim phones apart from $700 Samsungs, and the extra battery power.

Stiven
May 2, 2016
I think that 2k screen only has some sense in phablets that are 6+inches(maybe even 6,5+ inch), below that is just ridiculous.
Wandering Android
May 2, 2016
- Yeti hand
  May 2, 2016
Trayanee
May 2, 2016
I agree. Every time I see all those riddiculous 1366*768 laptops next to a 5.2″ inch 2K phones I have to laugh. Full HD is perfectly fine up to 6″. Its in fact perfectly fine up to 10″ but I can see 2K make at least a minor difference in those…

Yaniv Tzadka
May 2, 2016
2K displays are good for VR.
- yalok
  May 2, 2016
  Tried the samsung vr headset with note4. I would say that even 2k is not enough..
bro-reac
May 2, 2016
Unless you go on snooping and being critical but we people use qHD and to be honest some are actually pretty good.
I agree with you @Andi OEMs should concentrate on advancement in e.g battery, modular design, even areas in like Cortana like Windows is doing e.t.c

Airyl
May 2, 2016
- Yeti hand
  May 2, 2016
  - - Yeti hand
      May 2, 2016
Lazar Prodanovic
May 2, 2016
I find that 320 PPI is actually enough.
2K-4K displays? Well why not but one day when actual hardware can support it (GPU’s) efficient enough mean time there are a lot of display panel aspects that can be perfected (from; consumption, matrix, color calibration to better filters, oleo phobic, UV & Blue spectrum) for better user experience.

realjjj
May 2, 2016
This is such an expired conversation. Going from 720p to 1080p, from 1080p to 1440p and then 4k , it’s always the same whining.
Huawei is doing it to save $, Apple is doing it to protect margins and because the GPU is not quite there yet.
The issue is not as simple as being able to see a pixel from a certain distance. Up to 600ppi there is a substantial benefit from higher res and even after that there are some upsides at different stages. The ultimate res would be 1800 PPD (pixel per degree) and a 5 inch 1440p display is just some 123PPD.
Going 1440p RGB is preferable even at 5+inch as it really does offer more, for folks with good vision anyway. If you go big, like 6.3 inch 1440p, the ppi is just some 460-ish so it’s not all that close to 600.
And that’s for RGB, if you look at Pentile OLED where you have far fewer blue and red subpixels, you need 4k to reach a real 600ppi at 5+inch.
Ofc Huawei knows all that but they lie to sell their products.
Yes power and costs are always higher with pretty much anything more performant but that has never stopped us from going forward. The benefit of that tradeoff is substantial in this case and there is no reason not to push forward even bellow high end. In high end phone makers should and likely will be going above 600ppi (with RGB and 4k pentile) since it is high end and people pay a large premium for minor gains.
Corporations will say whatever serves their purpose and we shouldn’t fall for their marketing BS.
- Assefa Hanson
  May 2, 2016
  here is the thing
  1) your point of saying people where complaining about this when it was 720p etc but do some simple mathematics to see the percentage increase of quality(divide the pixels horizontal or vertical of the old res by new res) you see a smaller and smaller percentage increase we can call it diminishing returns so the benefit of 1080p from 720 is greater than 2k vs 1080
  2) even if the human eye can see 600ppi there is one thing to realize how the Brain works as well, no matter what resolution majority of pixels are not seen since your brain choses whats important, just like when you walk on the street you “see” everything but your brain will chose what to focus on higher res is essentially paying for more pixels that majority of the time will be out of your focus and unseen
  3) i dont know how can you say it not as simple as not being able to see what pixels at a certain distance when the foundation of resolution is very much this :/
  and if we want to get real technical for us males we cant even see some of the colours
  gpu and battery perfomance are higher priorities
  - realjjj
    May 2, 2016
    1 you might need glasses
    2 you can say the same nonsense about any resolution, so lets just go 320p
    3 i see you are too lazy to Google anything, cos you just feel it in your gut.
    - Assefa Hanson
      May 2, 2016
      its not about needing glasses, the fact that you focus on something you ignore lots of pixels, so it only make sense if you increase the amount of pixels in a given space you will see less of them and all MEN genetically cannot see as much colors women can this is a fact
      that 320p point doesnt make sense since the resolution you are focusing on is still very pixilated
      you are too lazy too look into the points so you concluded i never googles what you said i simply said 2k should be a lesser priority, and i gave facts about the human eye and how it sees, i did the maths to show the diminishing returns and you lazily say i used my gut

Rob
May 2, 2016
Well I’ve used HD, FHD and 2k phones and there IS a difference. Biggest phone I’ve owned had a 6.44″ 1080p screen and it really needed a 2k one as I could see the individual pixels and it drove me mad! But I agree that 2k below 6″ is pretty pointless. I think we are now only just starting to see GPUs that can handle the higher res displays with good enough efficiency that SOT differences are minimal. Going forward I think we are going to see more and more effort put into efficiency rather than all out performance as our mobiles have more than enough grunt to handle anything we throw at them.
- realjjj
  May 2, 2016
  You can’t even have photo realistic gaming at low resolution, even with a desktop and multiple GPUs. Long long way to go. AI related fields are just starting and phones are getting that too, in the form of deep learning.
  Phone screens will go foldable so in tablet mode the pixels will be more than 2x and with stretchable screens that would go even further but the smartphone is likely to disappear before stretchable. In glasses we’ll go to at least 16k per eye at high FPS.
  The CPU might be hitting good enough but not much else.

GodZillaa
May 2, 2016
No. In general, the following is an appropriate grouping, although in reality it is not this simple (when you factor is the display type, the matrix etc.), but still:
4.5″ to 4.7″: 720p (sometimes lesser)
4.7″ to 5.5″: 720p (Acceptable, many low end phones use this)
5.0″ to 5.5″: 1080p (Perfect fit)
5.0″ to 5.5″: 1440p (Overkill)
5.5″ to 6.0″: 1080p (Perfect to acceptable)
5.5″ to 6.0″: 1440p (Somewhat overkill, but not entirely)
6.0″ to ++: 1440p (Appropriate)
UHD is the real waste even for large devices (phablets).
1440p (2K) has its place for large phablets.

NextHype
May 2, 2016
For someone not using VR :
<5" 720p
5"<X6″ 2K
(now the problem is how to store 2K contents on a phone when 1H @ 2K equals 40GB)
For someone using VR :
Nothing under 2K, if possible 4K (Xperia Z5 premium / Oppo Find 9 ?). BTW the first 4K screen on Xperia Z5 seems to be a little “low” on the contrast, luminosity and colorimetry departments.
Moose
May 2, 2016
There is nothing wrong with higher res displays. Who wouldn’t want one? Unless they undermine battery life, which they do. This is why I am perfectly happy with 1080 X 1920 displays. Battery life is much more important to me than a marginally sharper screen.

saor
May 2, 2016
Having never seen or used one. I have nothing to add to the ensuing debacle!
TheOracle
May 2, 2016
I agree. A waste. No, in fact it’s an unnecessary gimmick just like super thin phones. 1080p is the perfect balance for battery life and quality on my 5.5″ phone. To be honest a good 720p screen is still adequate.
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  Super Thin phones are beautiful looking not a gimmick 😉
- TheOracle
  May 2, 2016
  They are pretty but not much use, sort of like Kim Kardashian.
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  Kim Karsdashian isn’t pretty though, unless you like woman that look like a horse.
- TheOracle
  May 2, 2016
  Everything is subjective in this case. The point is that thin phones are impractical due to their woefully inadequate batteries.
  So you would throw Kim Kardashian out of bed? What’s that old joke again? “I wouldn’t allow her in my bed. I’d do her on the floor!” lol
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  I wouldn’t allow that pig in my bed in the first place.
  Two phones:
  A. Moto X Play, 10.9mm 3650mAh
  B. Xiaomi Redmi Note 3, 8.7mm 4000mAh.
  You were saying something about thicker phones having bigger batteries?
- TheOracle
  May 2, 2016
  Typing this on my Redmi Note 3 Pro actually. I’m talking about that trend a couple of years ago when it was getting into the 6mm range. Ridiculous.
  Fyi my Zenfone 2 feels much thinner than this one because of the curved back. It’s razor thin at the sides, where most people actually hold their phones.
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  My favorite phone ever was my Gionee 5.5 (5.5mm).
- TheOracle
  May 2, 2016
  I remember that phone. 16gb of storage without an sd slot and a 2300mah battery! I considered it and ended up buying the Lenovo K910 Vibe Z. Same crappy storage but a 3000mah battery. I Loved that phone. How times have changed. Wouldn’t even consider it today.
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  For me 16gb is decent storage and battery for me depends on the processor, resolution and display type. There’s more to battery life than mAh.
- TheOracle
  May 2, 2016
  I hear you. I bought the K910 for the pentaband wcdma frequencies, which was a rarity then for dual-sim phones apart from $700 Samsungs, and the extra battery power.

Stiven
May 2, 2016
I think that 2k screen only has some sense in phablets that are 6+inches(maybe even 6,5+ inch), below that is just ridiculous.
Wandering Android
May 2, 2016
- Yeti hand
  May 2, 2016
Trayanee
May 2, 2016
I agree. Every time I see all those riddiculous 1366*768 laptops next to a 5.2″ inch 2K phones I have to laugh. Full HD is perfectly fine up to 6″. Its in fact perfectly fine up to 10″ but I can see 2K make at least a minor difference in those…

Yaniv Tzadka
May 2, 2016
2K displays are good for VR.
- yalok
  May 2, 2016
  Tried the samsung vr headset with note4. I would say that even 2k is not enough..
Assefa Hanson
May 2, 2016
people want 2k for VR in a secondary device like a smartphone and yet primary vr devices use 1080 LOL 1080p 2k is fine but for a SMARTPHONE it is utterly garbage it so useless its unbelievable, you know what screen innovation i want to see OLCD

bro-reac
May 2, 2016
Unless you go on snooping and being critical but we people use qHD and to be honest some are actually pretty good.
I agree with you @Andi OEMs should concentrate on advancement in e.g battery, modular design, even areas in like Cortana like Windows is doing e.t.c
Airyl
May 2, 2016
- Yeti hand
  May 2, 2016
- I voted for Sensai Max….
- Yeti hand
  May 2, 2016
  that’s also a great choice 😀

Lazar Prodanovic
May 2, 2016
I find that 320 PPI is actually enough.
2K-4K displays? Well why not but one day when actual hardware can support it (GPU’s) efficient enough mean time there are a lot of display panel aspects that can be perfected (from; consumption, matrix, color calibration to better filters, oleo phobic, UV & Blue spectrum) for better user experience.

intruda
May 2, 2016
How can you say 2k is pointless though. There is a clear difference.
Huawei if you are going to stick with 1080p panels atleast make them amoled.
I love my 6p and note 5. Opinion is opinion but don’t call it pointless. Companies matching small batteries with 2k screens are the issue and left bad taste in most folks mouth.
Stop telling folks they need to settle. Especially 1080p LCD panels.
- Assefa Hanson
  May 2, 2016
  there are legit arguements against 2k, its not a matter of small battery… its a matter of the gpu doing more work which then drains more battery and performance, and its ok if he calls it pointless its his opinion
  as for 1080p being amoled and not lcd… remeber both technologies have advantages over one another
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  To me it is pointless on anything below a 6 inch screen. The visual differences are minor. 2k is a big waste of resources.
- Hakim Farouk
  May 2, 2016
  2k is not pointless but it is on a smartphone display below 6inch. You can’t really throughly see and appreciate 2k on small displays. A good FHD would suffice. All you get from a 2k screen on a small screen device is the high battery consumption and not forgetting to mention small devices equal to smaller battery capacity (in most cases)

realjjj
May 2, 2016
This is such an expired conversation. Going from 720p to 1080p, from 1080p to 1440p and then 4k , it’s always the same whining.
Huawei is doing it to save $, Apple is doing it to protect margins and because the GPU is not quite there yet.
The issue is not as simple as being able to see a pixel from a certain distance and even that is problematic as the marketing math done by some is based on 20/20 vision but the average human does better than that.
Up to 600ppi there is a substantial benefit from higher res and even after that there are some upsides at different stages. The ultimate res would be 1800 PPD (pixel per degree) and a 5 inch 1440p display is just some 123PPD.
Going 1440p RGB is preferable even at 5+inch as it really does offer more, for folks with good vision anyway. If you go big, like 6.3 inch 1440p, the ppi is just some 460-ish so it’s not all that close to 600.
And that’s for RGB, if you look at Pentile OLED where you have only half the blue and red subpixels, you need 4k to reach the equivalent of 600ppi at 5+inch.
Ofc Huawei knows all that but they lie to sell their products. Maybe they should explain how the AMOLED on the P9 Plus is awesome when only green is 1080p while red and blue are 540p.
Yes power and costs are always higher with pretty much anything more performant but that has never stopped us from going forward. The benefit of that tradeoff is substantial in this case and there is no reason not to push forward even bellow high end. In high end phone makers should and likely will be going above 600ppi (with RGB and 4k pentile) since it is high end and people pay a large premium for minor gains.
Corporations will say whatever serves their purpose and we shouldn’t fall for their marketing BS.
PS: before you decide to reply and argue w/e random thing you might believe, Google the issue and get informed.
PS2: In 2012 when HTC launched the first 1080p device, so many whined about it , it’s funny to look back and see the same comments as today about 1440p, the odd thing being that 1440p have been around for so long already.
- Assefa Hanson
  May 2, 2016
  here is the thing
  1) your point of saying people where complaining about this when it was 720p etc but do some simple mathematics to see the percentage increase of quality(divide the pixels horizontal or vertical of the old res by new res) you see a smaller and smaller percentage increase we can call it diminishing returns so the benefit of 1080p from 720 is greater than 2k vs 1080
  2) even if the human eye can see 600ppi there is one thing to realize how the Brain works as well, no matter what resolution majority of pixels are not seen since your brain choses whats important, just like when you walk on the street you “see” everything but your brain will chose what to focus on higher res is essentially paying for more pixels that majority of the time will be out of your focus and unseen
  3) i dont know how can you say it not as simple as not being able to see what pixels at a certain distance when the foundation of resolution is very much this :/
  and if we want to get real technical for us males we cant even see some of the colours
  gpu and battery perfomance are higher priorities
- realjjj
  May 2, 2016
  1 you might need glasses
  2 you can say the same nonsense about any resolution, so lets just go 320p
  3 i see you are too lazy to Google anything, cos you just feel it in your gut.
- Assefa Hanson
  May 2, 2016
  its not about needing glasses, the fact that you focus on something you ignore lots of pixels, so it only make sense if you increase the amount of pixels in a given space you will see less of them and all MEN genetically cannot see as much colors women can this is a fact
  that 320p point doesnt make sense since the resolution you are focusing on is still very pixilated
  you are too lazy too look into the points so you concluded i never googles what you said i simply said 2k should be a lesser priority, and i gave facts about the human eye and how it sees, i did the maths to show the diminishing returns and you lazily say i used my gut

Rob
May 2, 2016
Well I’ve used HD, FHD and 2k phones and there IS a difference. Biggest phone I’ve owned had a 6.44″ 1080p screen and it really needed a 2k one as I could see the individual pixels and it drove me mad! But I agree that 2k below 6″ is pretty pointless. I think we are now only just starting to see GPUs that can handle the higher res displays with good enough efficiency that SOT differences are minimal. Going forward I think we are going to see more and more effort put into efficiency rather than all out performance as our mobiles have more than enough grunt to handle anything we throw at them.
- realjjj
  May 2, 2016
  You can’t even have photo realistic gaming at low resolution, even with a desktop and multiple GPUs. Long long way to go. AI related fields are just starting and phones are getting that too, in the form of deep learning.
  Phone screens will go foldable so in tablet mode the pixels and display area will be more than double (so lets say from 1W average to 2+W at max brightness) while with stretchable screens area and ppi would go even further but the smartphone is likely to disappear before stretchable. In glasses we’ll go to at least 16k per eye at high FPS.
  The CPU might be hitting good enough but not much else is.

balcobomber25
May 2, 2016
IMO 2K and above is only good in tablets and for those who want to dabble in VR. On smaller devices it is a “back of the box” feature and a waste of resources.
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN
May 2, 2016
agree..2K is definite waste on 6 inches and below screen size.

GodZillaa
May 2, 2016
No. In general, the following is an appropriate grouping, although in reality it is not this simple (when you factor in the display type, the matrix etc.), but still:
4.5″ to 4.7″: 720p (sometimes lesser)
4.7″ to 5.5″: 720p (Acceptable, many low end phones use this)
5.0″ to 5.5″: 1080p (Perfect fit)
5.0″ to 5.5″: 1440p (Overkill)
5.5″ to 6.0″: 1080p (Perfect to acceptable)
5.5″ to 6.0″: 1440p (Somewhat overkill, but not entirely)
6.0″ to ++: 1440p (Appropriate)
UHD is the real waste even for large devices (phablets).
1440p (2K) has its place for large phablets.

NextHype
May 2, 2016
For someone not using VR :
<5" 720p
5"<X6″ 2K
(now the problem is how to store 2K contents on a phone when 1H @ 2K equals 40GB)
For someone using VR :
Nothing under 2K, if possible 4K (Xperia Z5 premium / Oppo Find 9 ?). BTW the first 4K screen on Xperia Z5 seems to be a little “low” on the contrast, luminosity and colorimetry departments.
Moose
May 2, 2016
There is nothing wrong with higher res displays. Who wouldn’t want one? Unless they undermine battery life, which they do. This is why I am perfectly happy with 1080 X 1920 displays. Battery life is much more important to me than a marginally sharper screen.

Assefa Hanson
May 2, 2016
people want 2k for VR in a secondary device like a smartphone and yet primary vr devices use 1080 LOL 1080p 2k is fine but for a SMARTPHONE it is utterly garbage it so useless its unbelievable, you know what screen innovation i want to see OLCD

intruda
May 2, 2016
How can you say 2k is pointless though. There is a clear difference.
Huawei if you are going to stick with 1080p panels atleast make them amoled.
I love my 6p and note 5. Opinion is opinion but don’t call it pointless. Companies matching small batteries with 2k screens are the issue and left bad taste in most folks mouth.
Stop telling folks they need to settle. Especially 1080p LCD panels.
- Assefa Hanson
  May 2, 2016
  there are legit arguements against 2k, its not a matter of small battery… its a matter of the gpu doing more work which then drains more battery and performance, and its ok if he calls it pointless its his opinion
  as for 1080p being amoled and not lcd… remeber both technologies have advantages over one another
- balcobomber25
  May 2, 2016
  To me it is pointless on anything below a 6 inch screen. The visual differences are minor. 2k is a big waste of resources.
- Hakim Farouk
  May 2, 2016
  2k is not pointless but it is on a smartphone display below 6inch. You can’t really throughly see and appreciate 2k on small displays. A good FHD would suffice. All you get from a 2k screen on a small screen device is the high battery consumption and not forgetting to mention small devices equal to smaller battery capacity (in most cases)

Joel Adames
May 2, 2016
To me it is OK if it is a smaller phone, but at 5.4″ and up it should be 2k …. My take. First example is all Samsung flagships as all run 2K.
I believe optimization is key into the battery performance related to this. I would argue that Samsung and HUAWEI could push it to see what good reasons does Samsung has to go after 2K. As for myself I love 2K as my eyes CAN see the difference…

balcobomber25
May 2, 2016
IMO 2K and above is only good in tablets and for those who want to dabble in VR. On smaller devices it is a “back of the box” feature and a waste of resources.
Joel Adames
May 2, 2016
Would be interesting to see Samsung Galaxy S7 with a 1080p displays and what performance figures it could deliver on such a screen!!!!
yalok
May 2, 2016

Gizchina News of the week

Andi

Today in Home