3 ms·
I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than these... I'm not sure. Also, it just seems s
by coder543 3y ago
I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than these... I'm not sure.
Also, it just seems strange that anyone is asking for a 1080p monitor in 2023 outside of Esports. Are you sure you want 1080p (2K) and not 1440p (2.5K)? It bothers me when people use 2K to refer to 1440p. 1080p is 2K[1].
[0]: this chart has a few recent monitors and gives a general idea of how much power monitors consume: https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527 https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution is very clear on this subject, and I agree completely. 1080p is much closer to 2000 horizontal pixels than 1440p.
- davidhyde 3y agoYeh, I meant 1440p. 16:10. Was not aware these were referred to as 2.5k, thanks! I actually have a 32” one so no scaling is required and I think it only takes about 30W so it doesn’t feel like I’m sitting in front of a heater in summer. Honestly, anything below 50W is fine. My biggest gripe really is that it takes 7 seconds to turn on.
- coder543 3y agoIt is kind of weird that I don't think I've ever seen any monitor reviewers report the monitor's time-to-wake. Certainly, one of the most impressive things about the M1 laptops when they came out was that they woke instantly from sleep, including the screen.
- aidenn0 3y agoI use 16:10 1200p monitors primarily which are also arguably 2k. I recently used a 1440p monitor and it actually is quite nice. I see zero use for me for a 4k monitor; I tried it and was completely nonplussed (and it makes remote-desktop usage significantly worse).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]