POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • sciwizam - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    According to Engadget's press release, they fit in a 2150mAh battery in that 8.9 mm shell Reply
  • Wardrop - Saturday, February 25, 2012 - link

    Remember, mAh is irrelevant if we don't know the voltage the battery puts out. Knowing the type of battery and the number of cells (assuming they're in a serial configuration, not parallel) will tell us the voltage.

    Sorry for being the battery nazi, but I feel the need to pull up anyone who mentioned amp hours without mentioning the voltage. It's like quoting the diameter of a water pipe without telling us the flow rate.
    Reply
  • douglaswilliams - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    I remember Anand and others thinking on twitter that the Apple A5X will only be a dual core A9 processor. If that made its way into the next iPhone, I could see the average consumer being drawn to these quad core Tegra 3 phones like this LG rather than to Apple (aside from other influences and preferences that is), because four...that's got to be twice as good as two. This would be a major draw from the crowd who gets their new phone info from TV commercials (which is most people).

    That said, I think the X in A5X stands for quad. (or it's the Roman numeral for ten and we will all be blown away)

    And I'm so looking forward to Anand and Brian getting their hands on this phone.
    Reply
  • DLeRium - Friday, February 24, 2012 - link

    honestly, no one CARES about quad or whatever. they care for a good experience and as long as the phone feels fast.

    The downclocked A5 to 800mhz isn't a showstopper for anyone even if an Exynos in the SGS2 is 50% faster.
    Reply
  • Visual - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Sex sells, and booth girls sell almost as good, but since when is it acceptable to use 12-year old models for this? Reply
  • retrospooty - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Sheesh, relax man. They do look young, but its not like they had no clothes on, much less were involved in any sexual act.

    Relax.
    Reply
  • Operandi - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    It’s still pretty freaking weird; they are obviously there for “eye candy”. If I was anywhere near that both I’d feel pretty awkward, is that what LG is going for? Reply
  • B3an - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Dont think it's weird. They're just trying to make their phones appear to that age crowd, to try and give them a cool factor amongst the kiddies that buy all the iToys. Reply
  • FATCamaro - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Haha I thought the same thing... Reply
  • RaistlinZ - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    LOL. Seriously, relax dude. Maybe I'm getting old but I was mostly looking at the phones anyways, heh.

    The girls aren't even that attractive. The fact "sex" is the first thing the pops into your head when you see young girls makes me think there's something wrong with you, not LG.
    Reply
  • RaistlinZ - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Heck, the blond girl even has a wedding band on for pete's sake. Reply
  • Black1969ta - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Visual, Since when is an ad with a couple girls even close to being considered Child Porn?

    You typing the Words "Child Porn," is closer to committing porn than this picture.

    Funny thing, my wife gave me her Senior picture, she looks like a 12 y/o in it. In fact a woman saw it in my Wallet and commented on my good looking daughter, lol.
    Reply
  • B3an - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Visual is simply a closet pedobear, he just dont know it yet. Reply
  • w00tz0r3d - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Finally, a phone with an IPS panel that is not an iPhone! Thanks LG!

    Can't find the pixel density anywhere, however..!?

    iPhone 4S Pixel density:
    330 ppi
    Reply
  • retrospooty - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    4.7-inch display at 1280 x 720 IPS = more than plenty. Reply
  • Black1969ta - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Given what they do tell us, and assuming a 16:9 ratio screen that gives us sides of:

    4.48in x 1.42in=6.36in^2
    1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels
    so that is 144,869.22 pixels per in^2, or:
    380.62dpi Give or take.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong but please show me where I goofed Plz.
    Reply
  • mitaiwan82 - Friday, February 24, 2012 - link

    For 4.7" screen with 16x9 ratio, I got dimensions of the screen as 4.1" x 2.3".

    4.1" x 2.3" = 9.43 sq in.
    1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels
    921600 pixels / 9.43 sq in. = 97730.64 pixels/sq in.
    square root that and get ~312 pixels/in.

    @Black1969ta - not sure how you got 4.48 x 1.42 since it's not a 16x9 ratio
    Reply
  • Iketh - Friday, February 24, 2012 - link

    you were also redundant with your pleases Reply
  • limitedaccess - Sunday, February 26, 2012 - link

    Handy website for this -
    http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html

    ~312ppi
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now