Supposedly the 4.2 don't play games as good as the 4.0/5.0

[Blackdog]

To me it just dilutes the product line. Look at apple. They make one iPhone...ONE! And ONE iPodTouch. ONE! And look at the sales. The vast majority of people do not need a 3.8", 4.0", 4.2". 5.0", 7.0"...
If there's a new generation of hardware and firmware, than produce it and market it as a new generation. If there's nothing new to say, then shut up. Otherwise, they just dilute the brand and make it seem like a sea of the same old flotsam and jetsam.

I love my SGP5, but Samsung seems mired in corporate-brain. Corporate-brain makes sense when you work for the company...but not to anyone else.

BTW- the display on my 5.0 is great. No pixeling. I'm sure if the device cost another 50 or $100 the display would be better. But then, you'd still be better off on a laptop or watching a wide-screen TV. You're being too picky about a $230 device. If you paid $850 for a new smartphone unlocked and thought there was a bad display, you'd have a legitimate complaint. This is not a $4000 plasma TV.

[CrowdAds]

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by natkingcole

It has PowerVR sgx530. The galaxy wifi 4.0 has a sgx540.

I think Samsung wants to trick noob customers.

I've tested it yesterday in a store and almost bought it. Fortunately I didn't

Thanks for making me feel better about my purchase of the SGP 4.2

[BigMan85]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

To me it just dilutes the product line. Look at apple. They make one iPhone...ONE! And ONE iPodTouch. ONE! And look at the sales. The vast majority of people do not need a 3.8", 4.0", 4.2". 5.0", 7.0"...
If there's a new generation of hardware and firmware, than produce it and market it as a new generation. If there's nothing new to say, then shut up. Otherwise, they just dilute the brand and make it seem like a sea of the same old flotsam and jetsam.

I love my SGP5, but Samsung seems mired in corporate-brain. Corporate-brain makes sense when you work for the company...but not to anyone else.

BTW- the display on my 5.0 is great. No pixeling. I'm sure if the device cost another 50 or $100 the display would be better. But then, you'd still be better off on a laptop or watching a wide-screen TV. You're being too picky about a $230 device. If you paid $850 for a new smartphone unlocked and thought there was a bad display, you'd have a legitimate complaint. This is not a $4000 plasma TV.

I'd get an Ipod Touch if it wasn't for the really small screen, no micro SD slot to put more memory, & no removable battery. Also, the pricing is way too expensive. I would never spend almost $400 on an Ipod Touch. At that price point, your better off just getting an Ipad. But i'm either getting the 4.0 or the 4.2, but I'm waiting for reviews first on the 4.2 since there is none at all yet.

[puddnhead]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

Thanks for making me feel better about my purchase of the SGP 4.2

Don't let him make you feel bad, I think he sees everything through his own eyes (and anyone looking at things differently is a "noob" to him). You have to evaluate on your own needs. Frankly, if gaming is priority then you should not be getting ANY galaxy Players, you should look for a used dual core phone on fleabay or craigslist. So while this information (if correct) is disappointing, it is not necessarily fatal.

In my case, I'm getting this device for an 11 year old girl, who is not a gamer but likes to watch videos, skype, take pictures, and listen to music ... and yes, play an occasional, simple game. That is who a LOT of the iPod touches are selling to, so this is actually likely representative of Samsung's target market. From that POV, the smaller physical dimensions, smaller weight, increased screen size, increased battery life (with a replaceable battery), and front stereo speakers probably greatly outweigh the slightly inferior game graphics horsepower. I'm like you, I look at the tech stats, but I don't think most of the target market audience that Samsung has in mind are like you & I, they are like my daughter. And I like devices that are optimized for specific uses (what Apple does so well, at a price). For that reason I love my greyscale kindle touch, but can't figure out what all the fuss is about with the kindle fire ... I mean, it's worse for reading books, and there are other things that are better for video! Jack of all trades, master of none.

I hate to keep harping on this, but I frankly don't understand why anyone who wants to game a lot is looking at any of the Galaxy Players. this is a competitor for the iPod Touch (what most of my daughter's friends have), not the PSP or whatever.

[steinburger1109]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

To me it just dilutes the product line. Look at apple. They make one iPhone...ONE! And ONE iPodTouch. ONE! And look at the sales. The vast majority of people do not need a 3.8", 4.0", 4.2". 5.0", 7.0"...
If there's a new generation of hardware and firmware, than produce it and market it as a new generation. If there's nothing new to say, then shut up. Otherwise, they just dilute the brand and make it seem like a sea of the same old flotsam and jetsam.

I love my SGP5, but Samsung seems mired in corporate-brain. Corporate-brain makes sense when you work for the company...but not to anyone else.

BTW- the display on my 5.0 is great. No pixeling. I'm sure if the device cost another 50 or $100 the display would be better. But then, you'd still be better off on a laptop or watching a wide-screen TV. You're being too picky about a $230 device. If you paid $850 for a new smartphone unlocked and thought there was a bad display, you'd have a legitimate complaint. This is not a $4000 plasma TV.

Attribute their sales to great marketing and being pretty much the first on the scene. NOT because they limit the choices a customer has (quite severely, too).

The screen looks great, so long as you don't do a side-by-side with an iDevice. I'll give 'em that, the resolution on those are splendid. That said, I think the colors and saturation are better on the SGP5. It has dismal resolution, but unless you're directly comparing, it does brilliantly.

@lollicup04, my player's a great device that is gonna be with me for a long long time. I'm sure the 4.2 will be the same.

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by steinburger1109

The screen looks great, so long as you don't do a side-by-side with an iDevice. I'll give 'em that, the resolution on those are splendid. That said, I think the colors and saturation are better on the SGP5. It has dismal resolution, but unless you're directly comparing, it does brilliantly.

Yeah, I have a 4th-gen Touch, and the screen resolution and clarity are better than my SGP 5.0...but the screen is too damn small for a lot of things. For most everything I do, the 5.0 screen looks just fine. I consider myself lucky to have both, because each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

[brosko]

Originally Posted by TheTehk17

At first I thought that guy's comments were wrong, but maybe he is right. He said that the 4.2 uses an SGX530 GPU, which is slower than the 540 in the GP 4.0/5.0. This explains the laggy games- that commenter on YouTube said he played several games on the 4.2 that were laggy compared to the 4.0.

For me, pros for the 4.2 would be the speakers, the better design, and the slightly larger display in comparison to the 4.0 (I cannot stand the pixelation on the 5.0's display). But the slow GPU is the dealbreaker for me. Looks like I will be waiting for the next Player model.

the screen on the 5.0 is fine, albeit not as clear as the 4.0, (i have both)but it is still a very nice and clear screen. to say you cannot stand the pixelation sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.

[TheTehk17]

Originally Posted by brosko

the screen on the 5.0 is fine, albeit not as clear as the 4.0, (i have both)but it is still a very nice and clear screen. to say you cannot stand the pixelation sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.

It seems clear to you, not to me... pixelation became apparent to me very quickly once I began using the 5.0. It has an 180ppi display... that is a pretty low density, especially for web browsing, which I do most.

[brosko]

No, I see what you mean, like I said I have the 4&5. I am just saying I do not (nor do most of the people here judging by the posts) think that the screen clarity is that bad, and definitely not to the point of not being able to stand it. That just sounds a little ridiculous.

[TheTehk17]

Here is the thing. I have two Android phones and both of their displays are of the exact same density of the 5.0. I have been using one as my main device for over two years now, and I notice the pixelation all the time. I can stand it with my phone because I know it is old, and AMOLED partially makes up for the low density. But if I were to buy a new device, especially one that is intended to be one of Samsung's leading media players, the 180ppi simply does not cut it.

Now, I agree that the 4.0's display is acceptable.

[BigMan85]

Well my Best Buy has the 4.2s in stock at my store now. Now it's just figuring out if I should get it or the 4.0.

[Goucham]

Originally Posted by TheTehk17

It seems clear to you, not to me... pixelation became apparent to me very quickly once I began using the 5.0. It has an 180ppi display... that is a pretty low density, especially for web browsing, which I do most.

...and yet many make due with even lower pixel densities on desktop (1080p) monitors. Now if we are talking about having to constantly zoom in and out, I can see where you are coming from.

[TheTehk17]

Originally Posted by Goucham

...and yet many make due with even lower pixel densities on desktop (1080p) monitors.

I understand what you are saying. However, most use phones/media devices from one foot (more or less, depending on the person) away from their face, compared to maybe two feet (again, more or less) for a computer monitor. Thus, the computer monitor does not seem as pixelated as it is.

One other thing to consider is that computer monitors have not, in general, seen any huge resolution bumps within the past few years. Resolution maxes out at somewhere near full HD, and we are all used to it. But handhelds and their displays have evolved very rapidly within the past two years... not sure how else to explain this

[lollicup04]

Heres the SGP 4.0 vs SGP 4.2 Benchmark Comparison AskTheAndroidGuy posted

You Tube

You Tube

On Quadrant
SGP 4.0= 1256 Renderer= SGX540
SGP 4.2= 1783 Renderer= SGX530


On AnTuTu
SGP 4.0= 3020
SGP 4.2= 2726

So is the 4.0 or 4.2 better overall??

[Johnsmith11]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

Heres the SGP 4.0 vs SGP 4.2 Benchmark Comparison AskTheAndroidGuy posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lzTS...&feature=g-u-u

On Quadrant
SGP 4.0= 1256 Renderer= SGX540
SGP 4.2= 1783 Renderer= SGX530


On AnTuTu
SGP 4.0= 3020
SGP 4.2= 2726

So is the 4.0 or 4.2 better overall??

The Samsung galaxy player 4.0 is a better device. It plays games much better, has a 3.2mp autofocus camera compared to 2mp fixed focus on the 4.2, has 5.55 gb memory availiable for apps and games compared to 4.6 on the 4.2... It's jut a better device. So if ur going to be gaming or downloading apps, or taking pics go with the 4.0

[blcistheking]

The 4.0 would be the better buy imo, especially since it's $50 cheaper right now at Amazon.

[Blackdog]

I'm waiting for the 4.1 Split the difference

[puddnhead]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

So is the 4.0 or 4.2 better overall??

My rapidly forming conclusion is that the 4.0 is definitely better for games, but the 4.2 is probably the better MP3 player & casual web surfing platform, due to stereo speakers, longer battery life, larger screen, slightly smaller size. We got it last night & were listening to some tunes on it, those speakers are great. Though that video illustrates that the Super Clear LCD on the 4.0 is also nicer (though android guy didn't say anything about it, so I suppose it could have been viewing angle or brightness or something)

Does anyone have any thoughts on how big a limitation the slower graphics is for watching youtube videos or DVD rips? I'm thinking/hoping it may not be a big deal, based on my experience with building HTPCs (mine can show HD video on Win Media Center even on a pokey Atom & on board graphics). As soon as I can pry it away from my daughter (we got it yesterday but she barely let me look at it last night, she was too excited) I'll try stuff myself, but I would love to hear others' thoughts on that. If the graphics are more than enough for that, I think I may stick with the 4.2 for my daughter, since she is a "social/entertainment" computer user (music, videos, facebook, video chat, etc), not much of a gamer. The Need for Speed and FIFA soccer bundled with it only held her attention for a little while, for example, and she spent the rest of the time listening to music. Also I have a little extra incentive than most to stick with the 4.2 since I already have it, and because Amazon's order system got screwed up & I had to call three times because it was "stuck" (I ultimately had to cancel and re-place the order to get it to ship), in the end they gave me a $20 discount so it only cost me $180 I think though that a final decision hinges on how the two cameras compare ...

[TheTehk17]

Originally Posted by puddnhead

Does anyone have any thoughts on how big a limitation the slower graphics is for watching youtube videos or DVD rips?

I don't think it would matter. The CPU is mainly used for that task, and they seem to be about the same speed on the 4.0/4.2.

[BigMan85]

So which should I get the 4.0 or the 4.2? The 4.0 is on sale on Amazon for $139.99 and I'm seriously thinking about getting it. Is the web browser better on the 4.2? And is the 4.2 guaranteed to get ICS because if they are I may get the 4.2 instead.