Just a remark about your calculation, which is not that easy:
AFAIK the battery consumption of a LCD is not dictated by the number of pixels itself but is dominated by the sole area of the display, which has to be power by the background LED (in comparison to OLED where each pixel has to light itself).
Sure, more pixels need a little bit more power to reach the same brightness (because a bigger part of the area is coverd by ne frames of each pixels), but your calculation 4 times more pixels means 4 times more power is not correct at all!
If you want to calculate, take the area (here the device area as a rough estimation): FP2=14,37,3cm² = 104cm² vs. FP1=12.66.35cm²=80cm² means a ratio of ~100/80 or 20% more.
But what should also taken into account:
- Newer display generations can be more power efficient
- More pixels has to be addressed by CPU/GPU
- newer chipsets (CPU/GPU) are optimized to their display size
- FP2 is using a completely different internal architecture in terms of chipset/CPU/GPU-manufacturer thus you CAN’T compare it like this.
- maybe the CPU/GPU/Chipset can operate more power efficient in FP2 than in the FP1 in general, e.g. in IDLE/Standby mode? Maybe the antenna-electric is quite more efficient in power consumption than in FP1?
- Maybe bacause of this AND because of a bigger battery with 2420mAh we will end up with a even much better battery life for one charge cycle for the FP2 than for the FP1 (which in my case normally lasts about 4-5 days)?
So let’s see - and wait until first tests will reveal it!
Cheers, Robert