This generation of Samsung flagship devices in the Galaxy S21 line-up is quite different to that of past years, as Samsung has opted to create a much more uneven device line-up between the “standard” Galaxy S21, S21+ and the larger, more feature-packed Galaxy S21 Ultra.
Beyond the cameras and the general form-factor, the one area where the Galaxy S21 Ultra differs significantly to its siblings is the display. This is not only due to the cheaper siblings opting to downgrade to FHD resolution panels, but also because the S21 Ultra generationally employs a brand new first-of-its-kind OLED screen that pushes the boundaries in terms of technology.
QHD at 120Hz, finally, but still limited VRR
One of the larger changes in the capabilities of the S21 Ultra display is that ability to finally run the screen at its native 1440 x 3200 resolution at 120Hz – an option that previously wasn’t possible on the S20 or Note20 series devices.
Samsung’s way of enabling this is relatively straightforward and in line with what’s we’ve seen in the OnePlus 8 Pro last year: the MIPI interface clock has been upped from 1157MHz to 1462MHz. It’s still a single 4-lane interface in terms of width, but like on the 8 Pro, the increased frequency allows for sufficient bandwidth to now enable the high refresh rate at high resolution.
The panel of the S21 Ultra, much like the Note20 Ultra, uses a new hybrid oxide and polycrystalline backplane technology which is roughly equivalent to LTPO display technologies, and allows it to enable low refresh rates and seamless switching between refresh rates.
We’ve covered this new VRR (variable refresh rate) extensively in our screen analysis of the Note20 Ultra and how it works transparently to the hardware, and how the LFD (low-frequency drive) is able to achieve great power efficiency benefits when in the “Adaptive” screen refresh rate mode.
In this regard, the Galaxy S21 Ultra behaves the same as the Note20 Ultra. It’s to be noted that this also includes the behaviour of the VRR mechanism is not functional in low ambient brightness situations, with power consumption varying depending on what the ambient light sensor of the phone is picking up. This means that when in brighter situations where the ambient light sensor detects luminance beyond 40 lux, the VRR and LFD are working seemingly as intended.
The Galaxy S21 Ultra now allowing QHD at 120Hz, mean that we have 2 additional operating modes for the display compared to how the Note20 Ultra ran things:
At 60Hz QHD resolution, the base power consumption of the S21 Ultra (an Exynos 2100 variant in this context), uses up 469 to 481mW of power on a completely black screen in terms of total device power. Similarly to the Note20 Ultra, we’re seeing that there’s still some sort of VRR/LFD operating when in the 60Hz mode as the display will consume less power when in brighter ambient situations, although the delta here is less than what we saw on the Note20 Ultra.
At 120Hz FHD, the same operating modes that possible on the Note20 Ultra, the S21 Ultra here seems to consume 130mW more for some reason, ending up at 558mW over the Note20 Ultra’s 428mW. I’m not too sure as to why we’re seeing this larger difference between the devices, but we are talking about different DDICs and different panels along with different SoCs here.
The S21 Ultra here compares very well against the Snapdragon S20 Ultra, using up to around 200mW less power, although the difference to the Exynos S20 Ultra isn’t that big at only around 45mW.
Unfortunately, the big catch on Samsung’s VRR/LFD mechanism is the same as on the Note20 Ultra, as when you are in ambient light conditions below 40lux, the power savings mechanisms do not work anymore, and the phone will consume a great amount of power, similar to what we’ve seen on the Snapdragon S20 Ultra last year.
If you’re using your phone in dark or even dim conditions, the variable refresh rate doesn’t work at all, and the 120Hz mode comes at a huge 300mW cost in baseline power. Because the display panel in general uses less power in such conditions, because I’m assuming it runs at lower brightness levels, this baseline power impact is a very large % of the total device power consumption.
I wasn’t a big fan of this aspect of the Note20 Ultra and previous generation 120Hz implementations – I wish Samsung instead of disabling the VRR/LFD under dim conditions would simply switch to 60Hz mode as that would be a much more power efficient alternative. Of course, the best solution would be simply to get rid of this ambient brightness limitation and allow 120Hz and VRR in all conditions – it’s still not exactly clear at to the technical reason why Samsung is employing this limitation in the first place, as I’m not seeing any difference at all in the screen quality when tricking the phone’s ambient brightness sensor and it switching between VRR/LFD on and off.
A new OLED Emitter Generation – Huge Leaps
So, while the QHD 120Hz and VRR/LFD technology are interesting, they’re not exactly the newest technologies although Samsung does finally bring them to the Galaxy S series (well the Ultra at least).
The most interesting part of the Galaxy S21 Ultra display is the fact that it’s the first to use a new generation OLED emitter. Over the years, there have been noticeable jumps in OLED power efficiency, and most of them have been tied to introductions of new generation emitters which improved upon their predecessors. Samsung doesn’t really talk much about the technical descriptions of these emitters or their generational nomenclature, but the S21 Ultra is one such new generation.
To measure the difference between the screen generations, we simply measure the power consumption of the different devices at various display brightness levels, comparing the new Galaxy S21 Ultra to the previous-gen S20 Ultra as well as throwing in the Note20 Ultra as an extra data-point:
Right off the bat, we can see that there’s a great difference in display luminance capability as well as power consumption for the new S21 Ultra. The various devices start off at roughly the same baseline power consumption starting point on a complete black screen: 481mW for the S21 Ultra, 510mW for the S20 Ultra, and 476mW for the Note20 Ultra. We’re measuring things in the 60Hz mode as we’re just focused on the luminance power of the displays.
Compared to the S20 Ultra, at 200 and 400 nits, the S21 Ultra is roughly 22% more efficient when displaying full screen white. That’s actually a huge number given that we’re measuring total device power, not just the display.
If we’re normalising the power curves to the baseline power, the S21 Ultra is actually even more efficient – 26% to 31%, depending on brightness level.
In fact, although the new S21 Ultra’s screen is the brightest that Samsung has ever delivered, reaching full screen white levels of up to 942 nits, it uses less power than the S20 Ultra’s 778 nits peak brightness. The peak power is also 20% lower than the Note20 Ultra even though it’s also brighter by 31 nits.
It’s interesting to see the S20 Ultra vs the Note20 Ultra power curves here – the two roughly match up to around 150 nits, after which the Note20 Ultra takes the lead, however the advantage here seems to be more fixed in terms of absolute mW, as the power curves continue to run in parallel to each other – it’s likely the efficiency gains come from the new backplane technology of the Note20 Ultra. The S21 Ultra’s power curve however is clearly more divergent at increasing brightness levels, which is a sign of improved luminance efficiency as opposed to panel drive efficiency, which is exactly what we’d expect given the new emitter technology.
Rather than demonstrating power at a unrealistic full-screen white, let’s take something with a more realistic average picture level, such as the AnandTech homepage:
S21 Ultra & S20 Ultra
The scenario here is both the S21 Ultra and S20 Ultra side-by-side, set to 120Hz FHD, calibrated to 300 nits brightness, and under brighter ambient light conditions to trigger the S21 Ultra’s VRR/LFD mechanisms.
The difference in power consumption between the two phones in this best-case scenario for the S21 Ultra is enormous, using 27% less power than its predecessor.
That’s a huge generational leap, and undoubtedly results in a huge battery life advantage in favour of the new S21 Ultra, particularly for users who use the 120Hz mode, and tends to use their phones at higher brightness levels.
Prelude to Full Reviews
We’re still testing the S21 Ultra for performance and battery life, and are planning a SoC-centric article between the Snapdragon 888 vs Exynos 2100 variants of the Galaxy S21 Ultra soon, followed by device reviews of the S21 Ultra and the regular S21. While the SoC situation remains to be answered and investigated, the S21 Ultra’s advanced display technology and power efficiency looks that it will undoubtedly elevate it beyond its predecessors and baseline S21 siblings.
Although no one likes a know-it-all, they dominate the Internet.
The Internet began as a vast repository of information. It quickly became a breeding ground for self-proclaimed experts seeking what most people desire: recognition and money.
Today, anyone with an Internet connection and some typing skills can position themselves, regardless of their education or experience, as a subject matter expert (SME). From relationship advice, career coaching, and health and nutrition tips to citizen journalists practicing pseudo-journalism, the Internet is awash with individuals—Internet talking heads—sharing their “insights,” which are, in large part, essentially educated guesses without the education or experience.
The Internet has become a 24/7/365 sitcom where armchair experts think they’re the star.
Not long ago, years, sometimes decades, of dedicated work and acquiring education in one’s field was once required to be recognized as an expert. The knowledge and opinions of doctors, scientists, historians, et al. were respected due to their education and experience. Today, a social media account and a knack for hyperbole are all it takes to present oneself as an “expert” to achieve Internet fame that can be monetized.
On the Internet, nearly every piece of content is self-serving in some way.
The line between actual expertise and self-professed knowledge has become blurry as an out-of-focus selfie. Inadvertently, social media platforms have created an informal degree program where likes and shares are equivalent to degrees. After reading selective articles, they’ve found via and watching some TikTok videos, a person can post a video claiming they’re an herbal medicine expert. Their new “knowledge,” which their followers will absorb, claims that Panda dung tea—one of the most expensive teas in the world and isn’t what its name implies—cures everything from hypertension to existential crisis. Meanwhile, registered dietitians are shaking their heads, wondering how to compete against all the misinformation their clients are exposed to.
More disturbing are individuals obsessed with evangelizing their beliefs or conspiracy theories. These people write in-depth blog posts, such as Elvis Is Alive and the Moon Landings Were Staged, with links to obscure YouTube videos, websites, social media accounts, and blogs. Regardless of your beliefs, someone or a group on the Internet shares them, thus confirming your beliefs.
Misinformation is the Internet’s currency used to get likes, shares, and engagement; thus, it often spreads like a cosmic joke. Consider the prevalence of clickbait headlines:
You Won’t Believe What Taylor Swift Says About Climate Change!
This Bedtime Drink Melts Belly Fat While You Sleep!
In One Week, I Turned $10 Into $1 Million!
Titles that make outrageous claims are how the content creator gets reads and views, which generates revenue via affiliate marketing, product placement, and pay-per-click (PPC) ads. Clickbait headlines are how you end up watching a TikTok video by a purported nutrition expert adamantly asserting you can lose belly fat while you sleep by drinking, for 14 consecutive days, a concoction of raw eggs, cinnamon, and apple cider vinegar 15 minutes before going to bed.
Our constant search for answers that’ll explain our convoluted world and our desire for shortcuts to success is how Internet talking heads achieve influencer status. Because we tend to seek low-hanging fruits, we listen to those with little experience or knowledge of the topics they discuss yet are astute enough to know what most people want to hear.
There’s a trend, more disturbing than spreading misinformation, that needs to be called out: individuals who’ve never achieved significant wealth or traded stocks giving how-to-make-easy-money advice, the appeal of which is undeniable. Several people I know have lost substantial money by following the “advice” of Internet talking heads.
Anyone on social media claiming to have a foolproof money-making strategy is lying. They wouldn’t be peddling their money-making strategy if they could make easy money.
Successful people tend to be secretive.
Social media companies design their respective algorithms to serve their advertisers—their source of revenue—interest; hence, content from Internet talking heads appears most prominent in your feeds. When a video of a self-professed expert goes viral, likely because it pressed an emotional button, the more people see it, the more engagement it receives, such as likes, shares and comments, creating a cycle akin to a tornado.
Imagine scrolling through your TikTok feed and stumbling upon a “scientist” who claims they can predict the weather using only aluminum foil, copper wire, sea salt and baking soda. You chuckle, but you notice his video got over 7,000 likes, has been shared over 600 times and received over 400 comments. You think to yourself, “Maybe this guy is onto something.” What started as a quest to achieve Internet fame evolved into an Internet-wide belief that weather forecasting can be as easy as DIY crafts.
Since anyone can call themselves “an expert,” you must cultivate critical thinking skills to distinguish genuine expertise from self-professed experts’ self-promoting nonsense. While the absurdity of the Internet can be entertaining, misinformation has serious consequences. The next time you read a headline that sounds too good to be true, it’s probably an Internet talking head making an educated guess; without the education seeking Internet fame, they can monetize.
TORONTO – A new survey says a majority of software engineers and developers feel tight project deadlines can put safety at risk.
Seventy-five per cent of the 1,000 global workers who responded to the survey released Tuesday say pressure to deliver projects on time and on budget could be compromising critical aspects like safety.
The concern is even higher among engineers and developers in North America, with 77 per cent of those surveyed on the continent reporting the urgency of projects could be straining safety.
The study was conducted between July and September by research agency Coleman Parkes and commissioned by BlackBerry Ltd.’s QNX division, which builds connected-car technology.
The results reflect a timeless tug of war engineers and developers grapple with as they balance the need to meet project deadlines with regulations and safety checks that can slow down the process.
Finding that balance is an issue that developers of even the simplest appliances face because of advancements in technology, said John Wall, a senior vice-president at BlackBerry and head of QNX.
“The software is getting more complicated and there is more software whether it’s in a vehicle, robotics, a toaster, you name it… so being able to patch vulnerabilities, to prevent bad actors from doing malicious acts is becoming more and more important,” he said.
The medical, industrial and automotive industries have standardized safety measures and anything they produce undergoes rigorous testing, but that work doesn’t happen overnight. It has to be carried out from the start and then at every step of the development process.
“What makes safety and security difficult is it’s an ongoing thing,” Wall said. “It’s not something where you’ve done it, and you are finished.”
The Waterloo, Ont.-based business found 90 per cent of its survey respondents reported that organizations are prioritizing safety.
However, when asked about why safety may not be a priority for their organization, 46 per cent of those surveyed answered cost pressures and 35 per cent said a lack of resources.
That doesn’t surprise Wall. Delays have become rampant in the development of tech, and in some cases, stand to push back the launch of vehicle lines by two years, he said.
“We have to make sure that people don’t compromise on safety and security to be able to get products out quicker,” he said.
“What we don’t want to see is people cutting corners and creating unsafe situations.”
The survey also took a peek at security breaches, which have hit major companies like London Drugs, Indigo Books & Music, Giant Tiger and Ticketmaster in recent years.
About 40 per cent of the survey’s respondents said they have encountered a security breach in their employer’s operating system. Those breaches resulted in major impacts for 27 per cent of respondents, moderate impacts for 42 per cent and minor impacts for 27 per cent.
“There are vulnerabilities all the time and this is what makes the job very difficult because when you ship the software, presumably the software has no security vulnerabilities, but things get discovered after the fact,” Wall said.
Security issues, he added, have really come to the forefront of the problems developers face, so “really without security, you have no safety.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 8, 2024.
As online shoppers hunt for bargains offered by Amazon during its annual fall sale this week, cybersecurity researchers are warning Canadians to beware of an influx of scammers posing as the tech giant.
In the 30 days leading up to Amazon’s Prime Big Deal Days, taking place Tuesday and Wednesday, there were more than 1,000 newly registered Amazon-related web domains, according to Check Point Software Technologies, a company that offers cybersecurity solutions.
The company said it deemed 88 per cent of those domains malicious or suspicious, suggesting they could have been set up by scammers to prey on vulnerable consumers. One in every 54 newly created Amazon-related domain included the phrase “Amazon Prime.”
“They’re almost indiscernible from the real Amazon domain,” said Robert Falzon, head of engineering at Check Point in Canada.
“With all these domains registered that look so similar, it’s tricking a lot of people. And that’s the whole intent here.”
Falzon said Check Point Research sees an uptick in attempted scams around big online shopping days throughout the year, including Prime Days.
Scams often come in the form of phishing emails, which are deceptive messages that appear to be from a reputable source in attempt to steal sensitive information.
In this case, he said scammers posing as Amazon commonly offer “outrageous” deals that appear to be associated with Prime Days, in order to trick recipients into clicking on a malicious link.
The cybersecurity firm said it has identified and blocked 100 unique Amazon Prime-themed scam emails targeting organizations and consumers over the past two weeks.
Scammers also target Prime members with unsolicited calls, claiming urgent account issues and requesting payment information.
“It’s like Christmas for them,” said Falzon.
“People expect there to be significant savings on Prime Day, so they’re not shocked that they see something of significant value. Usually, the old adage applies: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”
Amazon’s website lists a number of red flags that it recommends customers watch for to identify a potential impersonation scam.
Those include false urgency, requests for personal information, or indications that the sender prefers to complete the purchase outside of the Amazon website or mobile app.
Scammers may also request that customers exclusively pay with gift cards, a claim code or PIN. Any notifications about an order or delivery for an unexpected item should also raise alarm bells, the company says.
“During busy shopping moments, we tend to see a rise in impersonation scams reported by customers,” said Amazon spokeswoman Octavia Roufogalis in a statement.
“We will continue to invest in protecting consumers and educating the public on scam avoidance. We encourage consumers to report suspected scams to us so that we can protect their accounts and refer bad actors to law enforcement to help keep consumers safe.”
Falzon added that these scams are more successful than people might think.
As of June 30, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre said there had been $284 million lost to fraud so far this year, affecting 15,941 victims.
But Falzon said many incidents go unreported, as some Canadians who are targeted do not know how or where to flag a scam, or may choose not to out of embarrassment.
Check Point recommends Amazon customers take precautions while shopping on Prime Days, including by checking URLs carefully, creating strong passwords on their accounts, and avoiding personal information being shared such as their birthday or social security number.
The cybersecurity company said consumers should also look for “https” at the beginning of a website URL, which indicates a secure connection, and use credit cards rather than debit cards for online shopping, which offer better protection and less liability if stolen.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 8, 2024.
