21–30 of 186 posts
I'm not sure if this LG display will have the same issue, but I won't be an early adopter.
Haven't phones, watches and tablets been using low refresh rates to enable battery improvements for a while? The Apple Watch Series 5 (2019) has a refresh rate down to 1Hz. M4 iPad Pro lacks always-on display despite OLED panel with variable refresh rate (2024): https://9to5mac.com/2024/05/09/m4-ipad-pro-always-on-display...
Phones and watches do that with LTPO OLED which I don't believe exists at higher screen sizes although I'm not sure why. This is supposed to be special because it isn't OLED so should be able to get brighter and not have to worry about burn in.
I once had an external monitor with a maximum refresh rate of 30 Hz, and mouse movements were noticeably sluggish. It was part of a multi-monitor setup, so it was very obvious as I moved the mouse between monitors. I'm not sure if this LG display will have the same issue, but I won't be an early adopter.
The display has a refresh rate of 120hz when needed. The low refresh rate is for battery savings when there is a static image.
Variable refresh rate for power savings is a feature that other manufacturers already have (apple for one). So you might already be an early adopter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the screen is only refreshing once per second, less energy is used to refresh the screen. The pixel uses the same amount of power.
I was not under the impression that sending some control signals took that much power.
The ability to vary it seems like it would be valuable as there are significant portions of a screen that remain fairly static for longer periods but equally there are sections that would need to change more often and would thus mess with the ability to stick to a low rate if it's a whole screen all-or-nothing scenario.
Sorry, might be obvious to some, but is that rate applied to the whole screen or can certain parts be limited to 1Hz whilst others are at a higher rate? The ability to vary it seems like it would be valuable as there are significant portions of a screen that remain fairly static for longer periods but equally there are sections that would need to change more often and would thus mess with the ability to stick to a lo…
For example:
- reading an article with intermittent scrolling
- typing with periodic breaks
Sorry, might be obvious to some, but is that rate applied to the whole screen or can certain parts be limited to 1Hz whilst others are at a higher rate? The ability to vary it seems like it would be valuable as there are significant portions of a screen that remain fairly static for longer periods but equally there are sections that would need to change more often and would thus mess with the ability to stick to a lo…
From what I understand, the laptop will reduce the refresh rate (of the entire display) to as low as 1Hz if what is being displayed effectively “allows” it. For example: - reading an article with intermittent scrolling - typing with periodic breaks
Haven't phones, watches and tablets been using low refresh rates to enable battery improvements for a while? The Apple Watch Series 5 (2019) has a refresh rate down to 1Hz. M4 iPad Pro lacks always-on display despite OLED panel with variable refresh rate (2024): https://9to5mac.com/2024/05/09/m4-ipad-pro-always-on-display...
Panel Self Refresh should largely just work, and I believe has been on laptops for a long long time. Here's Intel demo'ing it in 2011. https://www.theregister.com/2011/09/14/intel_demos_panel_sel... I'm not sure that there's really anything new here? 1Hz might be lower. Adoption might be not that good. But this might just be iteration on something that many folks have just not really taken good advantage of till now.…