111–120 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Articles have animated ads, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dell has to deal with windows cuts that in half with all the slop and spyware.
Last I checked: the XPS was one of the few laptop product lines offering native Linux (Ubuntu) as an alternative default configuration option to order It's how I got mine about 6-7 years back anyways, still works great (except the battery) ...never let windows get it's claws into the machine in the first place Edit: to add, I realized over time that having a battery that lasts longer just can't seem to beat my older…
> That will help save enormous amounts of power: up to 48 percent on a single charge, Why does refresh rate have such a large impact on power consumption? I understand that the control electronics are 60x more active at 60 Hz than 1 Hz, but shouldn't the light emission itself be the dominant source of power consumption by far?
There's definitely a few reasons but one of them is that you have to ask the GPU to do ~60x less work when you render 60x less frames
> That will help save enormous amounts of power: up to 48 percent on a single charge, Why does refresh rate have such a large impact on power consumption? I understand that the control electronics are 60x more active at 60 Hz than 1 Hz, but shouldn't the light emission itself be the dominant source of power consumption by far?
There's definitely a few reasons but one of them is that you have to ask the GPU to do ~60x less work when you render 60x less frames
You don’t need to render 60 times the same frame in software just to keep that visible on screen.
Anyone who has accidentally snapped the controller off a working LCD can tell you that the pixel capacitance keeps the colours approximately correct for about 10 seconds before it all becomes a murky shadowy mess... So it makes sense you could cut the refresh time down to a second to save power... Although one wonders if it's worth it when the backlight uses far more power than the control electronics...
It's for OLED screens, so there's no backlight, but also no persistence.
level of what? Power consumption? dude e-ink takes 0 power between refreshs.
And e-ink is pretty?
this is just regurgitating the manufacturer's claim. I believe it when I see it. Most of display energy use is to turn on the OLED/backlight. They're claiming, because our display flickers less, it's 48% more efficient now.
Horrid website: forced cookies, invisible adverts (Mamma Mia, anyone?), and that thing where it’s a page of garbage links when you go back. I will never click a PC World URL again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's definitely a few reasons but one of them is that you have to ask the GPU to do ~60x less work when you render 60x less frames
PSR (panel self-refresh) lets you send a single frame from software and tell the display to keep using that. You don’t need to render 60 times the same frame in software just to keep that visible on screen.
With the amount of bullshit animations all OSes come with these days, enabled by default, and most applications being webapp with their own secondary layer of animations, and with the typical developer's near-zero familiarity with how floating point numbers behave, I imagine there's nearly always some animation somewhere, almost but not quite eased to a stop, that's making subtle color changes across some chunk of the screen - not enough to notice, enough to change some pixel values several times per second.
I wonder what existing mitigations are at play to prevent redisplay churn? It probably wouldn't matter on Windows today, but will matter with those low-refresh-rate screens.