Samsung to launch 2GHz Galaxy Tab with class-leading display

Whether you love Apple’s latest iPhones or you hate them, you've got to admit: the Retina Display is pretty awesome. Apple is widely expected to launch its next iPad with an ultra-high resolution Retina Display too – but Samsung looks set to beat Apple to market, by first launching a new tablet with a spectacular 2560x1600px resolution.

With an 11.6” display, the new addition to the Galaxy Tab range is actually expected to retain almost the same dimensions as the current 10.1” model. BGR reports that the new tablet will have a much thinner bezel, so although the screen size will increase, the overall dimensions won’t grow.

With a 2GHz dual-core Exynos 5250 processor, the new Tab won’t be a slouch by any standards, while the latest and greatest version of Android – 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich – will be on board, bringing with it a range of cool new features including Android Beam… although until more ICS handsets go on sale, the only other device you’ll be able to beam stuff to is Samsung’s own Galaxy Nexus.

Additionally, it’s believed that the tablet will have a wireless docking facility – think along the lines of Apple’s AirPlay – that would enable users to stream media to an HDTV. Pocket-lint adds that the device will also support stereoscopic 3D display and output, given the capabilities of the Exynos chip.

The new tablet (shall we just call it the Galaxy Tab HD? sure, why not) is expected to be launched at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona at the end of February. Start saving now – it won’t be long before you can get your greasy fingerprints all over it. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

First 4 TB hard drive on sale in Japan

Next Story

4.3" Android is first step in Panasonic global domination plan

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why not tegra 3? It seems alot of the upcoming apps and games that are going to make sure of more tablet power are designed for the tegra 3 cpu/gpu. Or is this cpu alot more powerful?

Anyway..I have got a question. What will anyone possibly do with 2GHZ processor on Android OS device? Can it run anything like full featured desktop Adobe CS products or Autodesk products?

tuneslover said,
Anyway..I have got a question. What will anyone possibly do with 2GHZ processor on Android OS device? Can it run anything like full featured desktop Adobe CS products or Autodesk products?

There was an extensive blog post by a former Google [intern?] recently that got pretty deep into how Android uses the CPU. It's a worthwhile read, and can shed some light on why Android--in its current form--desperately needs moar cores and MHz. It may some day get 'fixed' and become more efficient, but...it's sort of the curse of open source. Ground-up rewrites don't really *happen* in the FOSS world. It's all a very compartmentalized, modular feel to how things are developed.

P.S. That's not wholly a criticism. It comes with it's own pros and cons, like anything else. But now is the right time for working on low level stuff in mobile OSes. If they wait too long, they risk facing the same crap Microsoft puts up with from users who hyperventilate at the thought of change.

tuneslover said,
Anyway..I have got a question. What will anyone possibly do with 2GHZ processor on Android OS device? Can it run anything like full featured desktop Adobe CS products or Autodesk products?

More power to track you with.

2560x1600 and 11" display? GOD No. 15" display with 1080p is making me blind already.

Edited by tuneslover, Dec 10 2011, 9:10pm :

Dude seriously... Get a clue. They up the screen resolution for crisper fonts and more space for side-by-side apps. Your eyes won't be looking at the same thing smaller, they'll be looking at the same thing at the same size but much more clearer.

So if you're looking at a website full of text and images, the text will be the same size but have a lot more definition and a lot more crisper, the images will look the same really but be able to fit on the screen without being so big.

1080p displays connected to PCs and Macs don't up the DPI unless you do it, but on phones and tablets, it's designed for the higher DPI.

Meph said,
This is embarrassing. It's more than my desktop's 1080p monitor. XD

It's embarrassing that the HDTV era has caused display tech to stagnate so badly. $1200+ for a large, super high-res monitor is inexcusable when a 1920x1200 27" can be had for under $300.

Buttus said,
i'll buy two and use them as monitors for my PC! haha i'd like a 22" monitor with a 5000x3200 resolution!

You would actually need 4....

oh man now im going crazy first iwas the transformer prime now this one ?
but this one look very nice + with Android - 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich , but the transformer look awesome as well. but how many mega pix with come this one ?

Windows7even said,
only one thing wrong with it imho...it runs android ....specs look fantastic though!

Yeah I know, Windows 8 can't come soon enough!

Windows7even said,
only one thing wrong with it imho...it runs android ....specs look fantastic though!

Yes, everything looks so scattered in that picture above.
Doesn't make any sense, and the design is not intuitive at all.

FMH said,

Yes, everything looks so scattered in that picture above.
Doesn't make any sense, and the design is not intuitive at all.

you have to understand that the particular image is only to show just how big the desktop is and it's fantastic resolution. you can cascade tons of information on the screen.

Windows7even said,
only one thing wrong with it imho...it runs android ....specs look fantastic though!

That's why everybody should wait for Windows 8 before buying anything too expensive like this.

FMH said,

Yes, everything looks so scattered in that picture above.
Doesn't make any sense, and the design is not intuitive at all.

In all fairness, on a wide open screen, scatter just sort of happens. If anything, you're bothered by a screenshot made for marketing purposes, so the marketers just didn't know how to make a truly appealing layout at the time. You can find any combination of attractive widgets and a good wallpaper to make the Android homescreen look good. None of that excuses the look and feel of Android out-of-the-box, of course.

Windows on a tablet would look equally 'scattered', probably, and Redmond's marketers will probably do just as poor a job of picking screenshots to use for press (god save us from social live tiles). Sometimes I swear these people should spend 20 minutes browsing one of our own monthly desktops forum threads. Sure, they'd have to fish through a few too many prepubescent configured landscapes filled with boobs, but there are still gems.

FMH said,

Yes, everything looks so scattered in that picture above.
Doesn't make any sense, and the design is not intuitive at all.

Android home screens are completely customisable so it's pointless to even make a comment like that. You can make your own intuitive home screen, or you can make it chaotic and fit as much on it as you like..it's entirely up to you.

No wonder Apple is so scared of Samsung. This may actually be the saving grace for, Android on tablets.

It will also probably beat iPad 3. According to some report Apple is having a lot of difficulties in making retina-display for it's iPad, and will probably go for a lower resolution of 1600x900.

FMH said,
According to some report Apple is having a lot of difficulties in making retina-display for it's iPad, and will probably go for a lower resolution of 1600x900.

I was under the impression (although quite willing to be proved wrong) that is was Samsung that actually made the displays for Apple, albeit a different division to that which makes the tablets.

Slugsie said,

I was under the impression (although quite willing to be proved wrong) that is was Samsung that actually made the displays for Apple, albeit a different division to that which makes the tablets.

Samsung does make a few components of the display, yes.
But LG is the main company behind the display, and it is having a problem mass-manufacturing such a pixel-density display. Because Apple's order for iPad 3 display is super huge!

Just to be clear to everyone, the pic up top is a 5-minute Photoshop job I threw together for the article, not a real render or leaked image or anything like that!

gcaw said,
Just to be clear to everyone, the pic up top is a 5-minute Photoshop job I threw together for the article, not a real render or leaked image or anything like that!

Must be the mockup that Apple made so they can say it looks amazingly exactly precisely possibly a lot like the iPadx.

sanke1 said,
Wow!!!! Might seriously consider this over iPad 3. This tab looks a lot like Samsung's current thin bezel line of LED TV's

The difference of course being that a TV isnt used in your hands with thumbs placed along the bezels, a tablet often is

I hope thats a fan made concept up there. Bezels should be wider.

And this news about resolution makes me so happy!.. This means that when windows 8 tablets come out. This resolution will pretty much be the norm. And windows will specifically design Aero UI for higher DPIs.. all WIN here

Zain Adeel said,
I hope thats a fan made concept up there. Bezels should be wider.

And this news about resolution makes me so happy!.. This means that when windows 8 tablets come out. This resolution will pretty much be the norm. And windows will specifically design Aero UI for higher DPIs.. all WIN here


Well it is, bcaw said below he threw it together for the article.

Still, as it says in the article:


With an 11.6” display, the new addition to the Galaxy Tab range is actually expected to retain almost the same dimensions as the current 10.1” model. BGR reports that the new tablet will have a much thinner bezel, so although the screen size will increase, the overall dimensions won't grow.

It's supposed to have a larger screen without changing it's dimensions by a lot so the bezel would end up tiny...

Looks pretty neat, good specs and comes with Icecream Sandwhich.
Not sure I like that bezel though, it looks weird and it's nice to be able get a good grip where your thumbs are on the front without them covering the any part of the screen.


Apple is widely expected to launch its next iPad with an ultra-high resolution Retina Display too - but Samsung looks set to beat Apple to market, by first launching a new tablet with a spectacular 2560x1600px resolution.

That's just not true though, a 2560x1600px resolution is not enough for a 11.6 inch screen to be classed as a retina display, if it where two inches small it would be but at that size it's not. Of course we don't know if the next iPad will have a proper retina display either.
With all that said, it should still be an amazing resolution for that screensize. (Good to see manufacturers learnt something from the netbooks )

Leonick said,
That's just not true though, a 2560x1600px resolution is not enough for a 11.6 inch screen to be classed as a retina display, if it where two inches small it would be but at that size it's not.

Well... yes and no. Apple uses a very strict definition of "Retina Display" as 300dpi or above, but that's really just a marketing definition rather than one strictly and scientifically based on the way the eye actually sees. It assumes that the eye sees a fixed number of pixels at any one time, when obviously the eye doesn't see things as 'pixels', and the 'resolution' of the retina varies with factors like distance. These concepts are too complex for my simple brain to even begin to explain properly - but there's a great explanation for this at http://www.pcworld.com/article..._have_a_retina_display.html.

So although you're absolutely right that Samsung's display won't match Apple's definition for a Retina Display (it'll be well short at "just" 260ppi), by other definitions it could be presented as such - and as you say, it'll still be an incredible resolution on a relatively small display

Samsung wouldn't be able to call it a 'Retina Display' anyway, as Apple would get very, very cross - but Sammy will no doubt concoct an equivalent term that has plenty of marketing bluster and puff to it. "HD" probably won't be enough - it'll be "HD Plus" or "Ultra HD" or something similarly superlative.

Enron said,
Well the iPad has a smaller screen so if they got the 2560x1600, it would be closer to 300 dpi.

Absolutely - if the iPad 3 had 2560x1600 resolution with the same size display as the current version (9.7"), the pixel density would be around 310ppi (quite an improvement from the current 132dpi).

Samsung might get to market first, but they won't necessarily be 'class-leading' for long!

Yea, gcaw, your right. Obviously you wont need as high a DPI for the pixels to become indistinguishable on a device held further away, but as you say it's a marketing term just as HDTV.
And just as HDTV is defined by it's height of 1080 pixels (and all other resolutions above I suppose) we must put a definition on what is and what is not a retina display, unfortunately Apple (being the ones to introduce the term) hasn't given us a number.
Personally I'd go by the simple definition that pixels are indistinguishable by the human eye even at close inspection (no magnifying glasses or stuff), the iPhones retina display fits that definition. To put a number I'd say over 300DPI, not that I've tried and confirmed that actually fills the first requirement I just gave, but the threshold for distinguishable pixels should be in the area, probably below it but possibly slightly above.

That's my take on it at least.

Enron said,
Well the iPad has a smaller screen so if they got the 2560x1600, it would be closer to 300 dpi.

That's true, Apple would however never use the aspect ratio.
The rumour the last few weeks talking about an iPad with a retina display has been saying double the original so 2048x1536 (QXGA) resolution which while plausible I really hope they don't go with that, if they do they better not call it a Retina display as it would only have a DPI of 263 and it would make the term meaningless.
Problematically, to get over the 300 limit they'd have to, if we just look at the standard named resolutions, go for the next 4:3 size above QXGA which would be QUXGA at 3200x2400 which would likely be a pretty big leap in price, the DPI would end up over 400 but the get a retina display it'd be that, get someone to manufacture a custom display with a resolution somewhere in-between QXGA and QUXGA (if that's possible) or make the iPad smaller (not likely, well maybe for a second version)...