LG W2252TE - "World's most energy efficient monitor&quo

weboweb · Post by **weboweb** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 pm

I just saw this browsing Engadget this morning and thought of SPCR. LG seems to be releasing an LCD screen built around energy efficiency. The contrast ratio seems a bit crazy and it wouldn't surprise me if they have cheated by using Samsung's trick (variable brightness backlight).

Anyhow, here's the link. The monitor is very new and hasn't yet been released:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/12/lg-c ... ient-moni/

Felger Carbon · Post by **Felger Carbon** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:04 pm

My first LCD monitor, a more-than-3yr-old CDLCD 19", draws 35W total wall power (with 300NITS turned down). It seems this 22" has a 40W reduction (?) in wall power, which amounts to 40%. This tells me it pulls 60W, meaning the competition is claimed to pull 100W wall power.

Am I missing something? The emperor appears to have no clothes!

Fayd · Post by **Fayd** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:15 pm

1, your monitor is turned down...

2, your monitor is 19", this is 22. admittedly that's not a large increase, but it is an increase.

3, it's an engadget link...

Modo · Post by **Modo** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:07 am

A 45% reduction of 40W means roughly 90W is assumed for other 22'' monitors. My 24'' MVA monitor pulls 95W maximum according to the manual, so claiming 90W for a 22'' one is not far off. Mind you, that's maximum power consumption. So, the increased "efficiency" could be a result of using lower maximum brightness (since it's too high on LCD monitors anyway). Unless they used a LED backlight or some such.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:24 am

It's simple: if monitor A draws 100W at a brightness level that will make you blind in two seconds, and monitor B draws 50W at half the brightness level of the first one, that doesn't mean the second monitor is more power-efficient, just that it has lower maximum brightness

Marketing speak. I wouldn't pay much attention to it.

m^2 · Post by **m^2** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:03 am

This 20.1" panel draws 18w. If power consumption is proportional to it's area, it would draw ~21.5w as 22". Full monitor some more, but 40w doesn't sound impressive.

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:00 am

m^2 wrote:This 20.1" panel draws 18w. If power consumption is proportional to it's area, it would draw ~21.5w as 22". Full monitor some more, but 40w doesn't sound impressive.

The article claims a 40W reduction compared to other monitors...I didn't see any actual insight into the real power draw.

m^2 · Post by **m^2** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:24 pm

ryboto wrote:
m^2 wrote:This 20.1" panel draws 18w. If power consumption is proportional to it's area, it would draw ~21.5w as 22". Full monitor some more, but 40w doesn't sound impressive.
The article claims a 40W reduction compared to other monitors...I didn't see any actual insight into the real power draw.

Yeah, mistake. They claim "45% (or roughly 40W) reduction". If 40W is 45% then 100% is 89W. This monitor claims 55% if this, 49W. Even worse.

EsaT · Post by **EsaT** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:25 pm

LCDs are bad in enough many aspects so instead of trying to do minor fixes they should try to get FED/SED and OLED displays into mass production...
For example LCDs have two polarizing filters so backlight has to produce four times the light which is outputted meaning they're still notable energy wasters even if they draw less than CRTs.

This page has power consumptions for some monitors:
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:10 pm

I hope they would get OLED monitor's soon out. They should use alot less power compeared LCD's and CRT's.

Sendorm · Post by **Sendorm** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:04 am

what engadget actually tried to say was:

"What makes it so is a power consumption of just 22W - 45 per cent less than the 40W other 22in displays gobble up, LG claimed."