←back to thread

Galaxy XR: The first Android XR headset

(blog.google)
169 points thelastgallon | 4 comments | 22 Oct 25 16:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.428s | source
Show context
Reubend ◴[22 Oct 25 18:52 UTC] No.45673530[source]▶
I really wish they pushed for a 120 hz refresh rate instead of 90. IMO, this makes a huge difference for the immersion. I'm guessing that they didn't want to have stutters if their chip can't handle the higher FPS, but the refreshed Vision Pro will have a significant advantage there.
replies(2): >>45674799 #>>45675882 #
1. zmmmmm ◴[22 Oct 25 22:19 UTC] No.45675882[source]▶
Sadly the weakest part of it is the old Qualcomm chip in it. It can just manage to render the 4k displays but it's barely capable of it even at 72 hz.
replies(2): >>45676364 #>>45678019 #
2. Reubend ◴[22 Oct 25 23:17 UTC] No.45676364[source]▶
Ah, that's interesting. Are there any benchmarks of the Qualcomm chip versus the Vision Pro?
replies(1): >>45678163 #
3. magixx ◴[23 Oct 25 03:54 UTC] No.45678019[source]▶
It's interesting because this is exactly right in that this chipset can't handle these high resolutions that well. The Play For Dream VR headset team went into this a bit and they're using similar hardware.
4. zmmmmm ◴[23 Oct 25 04:24 UTC] No.45678163[source]▶
I think it's typically said to be about half as powerful as the M2 was. So far far less than the M5. I'm honestly quite surprised at what they seem to be able to get out of it on the Galaxy XR. I guess the direct partnership with Qualcomm probably means it's optimised like crazy. But even still, just rendering at 4K at all is impressive for that chip.