Math Reason why 6.7" is the wrong display size for the Pixel 3 XL

Itsa_Me_Mario

¯\_(o_o)_/¯
Feb 19, 2018
1,681
0
0
Visit site
Assumption:
The Pixel 3 XL is rumored to be nearly identical in physical body size to the Pixel 2 XL. If that's not true, then the rest of this is false.

All values below are available from calculations on publicly available data, official and/or leaked.

Details:
1) A 6.7" display at an 18.5:9 ratio is 6.02" x 2.93" with an area of 17.66 in^2
2) The phone is rumored to be 6.22" x 3.02" with an area of 18.78 in^2
3) 17.66/18.78 = .9404, which would be a 94% screen to body ratio, excluding the notched area.
4) This phone here has a screen:body of 86.9%
oppo find x.jpg
5) The Pixel 3 XL does NOT look like that, and therefore does not have a screen to body ratio that's greater than or equal to 87%
6) We could stop here.

7) The Pixel 2 XL has a screen:body of 76.4%, and so the Pixel 3 XL should be >= 76.5%
8) We now have an upper and lower bound, however the upper bound is egregious because it's on a bezel-less phone and the P3XL has a notch and a chin
9) The closest device in terms of design and size to the P3XL is the OnePlus 6.
10) The OP6 is 2.2 mm shorter and 1.3 mm thinner than the Pixel 2 XL, which is presumed to be nearly identical in size to the Pixel 3 XL
11) The OnePlus 6 has a 6.3" display with a similar aspect ratio (19:9 vs 18.5:9) and has a screen to body ratio of 83.8%
12) Because the OP6 has a smaller chin and smaller notch than the Pixel 3 XL, 83.8% gives us a more accurate upper bound
13) This means the screen to body ratio of the Pixel 3 XL is almost certainly greater than 76.4% and is less than 83.8%
14) A 6.3" display in a 18.5:9 configuration happens to have an area of 15.61 in^2
15) 15.61/18.78 = 83.1%, which falls within our lower and upper bound limits as determined in 13. This is probably the largest the display can be, and is the most reasonable estimate according to my analysis
16) We could stop here.

17) To determine the lowest display size possible, we simply reverse the order of a couple of calculations.
18) The area of a phone with a 76.5% screen:body would be 14.37 in^2
19) A phone that is 18.5:9 and has an area of 14.40 in^2 would be 6.05" diagonally, being 2.65" x 5.44".
20) This would actually give it the exact same area as the Pixel 2 XL, which would make it taller and skinnier with no benefit and would add side bezels. Renders and photos do not support this.

21) Based on renders/photos, the notch appears to be approx. 2/37 of the display height and 3/8 of the display width. As decimals, .375 and .054 repeating.
22) This would make the notch, if it were rectangular, .31" tall and 1.03" wide, with an area of .32 in^2
23) Using the Pixel 2 XL again, simploy cutting out the parts of the bezel not included in that notch would give it additional screen area = to (width-1.03)*.31 or 2.68-1.03= 1.65 * .31 = .51 in^2
24) The area of the Pixel 2 XL is 14.40 in^2. Adding .51 in^2 = 14.90 in^2.
25) 14.90/18.78 = 79.34% screen:body and this would become our new lowest bound. Doing nothing to the P2XL except cutting out the notch would give us a device that is 6.28" diagonal, being 2.68" by 5.68" with an area of 15.24 in^2.
26) 15.24 is less than the 15.74 upper bound we established in 12 and is therefore valid as an option
27) 6.28" would probably be rounded to 6.3"
28) The 6.28" display has an odd aspect ratio, because of the inexact measurements of the notch. It represents a 2.12:1 aspect ratio, when we expect the real aspect ratio to be closer to 2.06:1. This represents a minor difference that would slightly increase one the width slightly, resulting in a slightly higher diagonal value, such as 6.3"
29) We could stop here. Actually, let's do that.

Summary:
A) The device is almost certainly not 6.7" unless the body dimensions are vastly different than the Pixel 2 XL.
B) A 6.3" 18.5:9 display fits almost perfectly within the upper bounds established by the screen:body of the similarly designed OnePlus 6 C) A 6.3" 18.5:9 display fits almost perfectly within the lower bound established by removing the upper bezel from the Pixel 2 XL and replacing it with the rendered/photographed notch of the Pixel 3 XL

Conclusion:
Based on the data available, a 6.3" display is supported by the evidence, while a 6.7" display is not.

Please feel free to correct any errors that you encounter, this is rough math done on my lunch break today.
 

Kalvin Kerns

Trusted Member
Feb 14, 2014
1,586
0
0
Visit site
Assumption:
The Pixel 3 XL is rumored to be nearly identical in physical body size to the Pixel 2 XL. If that's not true, then the rest of this is false.

All values below are available from calculations on publicly available data, official and/or leaked.

Details:
1) A 6.7" display at an 18.5:9 ratio is 6.02" x 2.93" with an area of 17.66 in^2
2) The phone is rumored to be 6.22" x 3.02" with an area of 18.78 in^2
3) 17.66/18.78 = .9404, which would be a 94% screen to body ratio, excluding the notched area.
4) This phone here has a screen:body of 86.9%
View attachment 291047
5) The Pixel 3 XL does NOT look like that, and therefore does not have a screen to body ratio that's greater than or equal to 87%
6) We could stop here.

7) The Pixel 2 XL has a screen:body of 76.4%, and so the Pixel 3 XL should be >= 76.5%
8) We now have an upper and lower bound, however the upper bound is egregious because it's on a bezel-less phone and the P3XL has a notch and a chin
9) The closest device in terms of design and size to the P3XL is the OnePlus 6.
10) The OP6 is 2.2 mm shorter and 1.3 mm thinner than the Pixel 2 XL, which is presumed to be nearly identical in size to the Pixel 3 XL
11) The OnePlus 6 has a 6.3" display with a similar aspect ratio (19:9 vs 18.5:9) and has a screen to body ratio of 83.8%
12) Because the OP6 has a smaller chin and smaller notch than the Pixel 3 XL, 83.8% gives us a more accurate upper bound
13) This means the screen to body ratio of the Pixel 3 XL is almost certainly greater than 76.4% and is less than 83.8%
14) A 6.3" display in a 18.5:9 configuration happens to have an area of 15.61 in^2
15) 15.61/18.78 = 83.1%, which falls within our lower and upper bound limits as determined in 13. This is probably the largest the display can be, and is the most reasonable estimate according to my analysis
16) We could stop here.

17) To determine the lowest display size possible, we simply reverse the order of a couple of calculations.
18) The area of a phone with a 76.5% screen:body would be 14.37 in^2
19) A phone that is 18.5:9 and has an area of 14.40 in^2 would be 6.05" diagonally, being 2.65" x 5.44".
20) This would actually give it the exact same area as the Pixel 2 XL, which would make it taller and skinnier with no benefit and would add side bezels. Renders and photos do not support this.

21) Based on renders/photos, the notch appears to be approx. 2/37 of the display height and 3/8 of the display width. As decimals, .375 and .054 repeating.
22) This would make the notch, if it were rectangular, .31" tall and 1.03" wide, with an area of .32 in^2
23) Using the Pixel 2 XL again, simploy cutting out the parts of the bezel not included in that notch would give it additional screen area = to (width-1.03)*.31 or 2.68-1.03= 1.65 * .31 = .51 in^2
24) The area of the Pixel 2 XL is 14.40 in^2. Adding .51 in^2 = 14.90 in^2.
25) 14.90/18.78 = 79.34% screen:body and this would become our new lowest bound. Doing nothing to the P2XL except cutting out the notch would give us a device that is 6.28" diagonal, being 2.68" by 5.68" with an area of 15.24 in^2.
26) 15.24 is less than the 15.74 upper bound we established in 12 and is therefore valid as an option
27) 6.28" would probably be rounded to 6.3"
28) The 6.28" display has an odd aspect ratio, because of the inexact measurements of the notch. It represents a 2.12:1 aspect ratio, when we expect the real aspect ratio to be closer to 2.06:1. This represents a minor difference that would slightly increase one the width slightly, resulting in a slightly higher diagonal value, such as 6.3"
29) We could stop here. Actually, let's do that.

Summary:
A) The device is almost certainly not 6.7" unless the body dimensions are vastly different than the Pixel 2 XL.
B) A 6.3" 18.5:9 display fits almost perfectly within the upper bounds established by the screen:body of the similarly designed OnePlus 6 C) A 6.3" 18.5:9 display fits almost perfectly within the lower bound established by removing the upper bezel from the Pixel 2 XL and replacing it with the rendered/photographed notch of the Pixel 3 XL

Conclusion:
Based on the data available, a 6.3" display is supported by the evidence, while a 6.7" display is not.

Please feel free to correct any errors that you encounter, this is rough math done on my lunch break today.

You're thinking WAY to hard about this.
 

Itsa_Me_Mario

¯\_(o_o)_/¯
Feb 19, 2018
1,681
0
0
Visit site
And now in the metric system..............jk

Funny enough, I do a lot of the calculations in metric and then convert it back because it's easier for me to think about 12.2 * x than .5 * x. Like the .31 x 1.65 inches is the exact same calculation as 7.87 * 41.91 mm = 330 mm^2 area, which divided by 25.4^2 gives you the same .51in^2 area that the string I used in the thread computes.
 

anon(10274434)

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2017
1,844
0
0
Visit site
Funny enough, I do a lot of the calculations in metric and then convert it back because it's easier for me to think about 12.2 * x than .5 * x. Like the .31 x 1.65 inches is the exact same calculation as 7.87 * 41.91 mm = 330 mm^2 area, which divided by 25.4^2 gives you the same .51in^2 area that the string I used in the thread computes.

With all due respect...
After seeing your calculations here and there, I have decided you must have been the kind of kid in school who made the rest of us look bad.
;)
 

Itsa_Me_Mario

¯\_(o_o)_/¯
Feb 19, 2018
1,681
0
0
Visit site
Re: Math Reason why 6.7" is the wrong display size for the Pixel 3 XL

Now you did it.

.15

I don't understand .15

We're talking inches.
That's what we did when I was in school.

What is .15, 1/8 if a inch
15 hundredths of an inch. More than 1/8 of an inch, less than 1/6 of an inch.

1/8" = .125"
 

cardboard60

Well-known member
Apr 10, 2014
3,610
1
0
Visit site
You ever drug out a Carpenters measuring tape.
They normally come in 1/16 of a inch.

I'm not a machinist.
1/100 of a inch.

1/32 of a inch and I'd have to go to Lowe's and get a ruler.
Give me a break.
 

cardboard60

Well-known member
Apr 10, 2014
3,610
1
0
Visit site

anon(10274434)

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2017
1,844
0
0
Visit site
Have a P2 with a 5.0" screen. The P3 is "supposed to" have a 5.4" screen. From the pics of the P3 I have seen, it looks like the extra size may have come from reduction in top and bottom bezels. Measuring on the P2 this looks doable.

I am hoping this is true.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
946,052
Messages
6,926,118
Members
3,160,053
Latest member
JOJOdokr