3 ms·
Wider gamut is what might be the differentiator here. With respect to power consumption, the video codec would probably draw more than 100mW [1], and at that p
by utopcell 9y ago
Wider gamut is what might be the differentiator here.
With respect to power consumption, the video codec would probably draw more than 100mW [1], and at that point, the 2mW display consumption would not matter.
[1] a 640x480@15fps hardware decoder draws 71mW. https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa11/cse291-a/pdf/02/JSSC_stacked_mobile.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa11/cse291-a/pdf/02/JSSC_st...
- Someone 9y agoThe display i mentioned is 144x168. 640x480 is over 12 times as many pixels. _if_ decoding scales by #pixels, that would move that 71 mW down to around 6 mW. Still larger, more so if you go to 30 Hz or higher, but there is no silver bullet if you want a smaller watch or longer battery life.
- utopcell 9y agoEven assuming a CPU that would only consume 6 mW when decoding video, and nothing else (DRAM, wireless) draining power, then (at 15fps) the display is only drawing 0.5 mW, or 1/12-th of the CPU power consumption. Even if you were to assume a display that draws no power, that would only increase battery life by 8%. A more realistic estimate would be 1% to 2%. Nothing revolutionary about that.