- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
They also emit real photons. 🤯
Yep, virtual lights work the same as real lights
If they’re not looked at, they don’t consume as much electricity. So there’s that difference.
The problem with those virtual lamps is that when you look away, the light turns off but the heat doesn’t.
Nah, fuck that. Buys e-ink monitor
If you’re using an older LCD screen, turning off the lamp uses more electricity than leaving it on
And by convention, all vehicles in video games are electric.
And are full of untold mathematical horrors, just like physical lamps.
Playing a fireplace video produces real heat.
I guess if you disable the computer’s fan, yes.
Greetings fellow time-traveler. What model of entropy-reversing computer fan do you use?
Why reversing enthropy? I just throw the computer in the trash when it burns off so I can buy a new one every month. Mass consumer society is so greaaat.
Shades in video games use even more electricity
Not on OLED screens + prebaked lightning
That’s too specific conditions, but okay :)
not that specific. most modern displays are oled, and most efficient games use prebaked lighting. the average gamer probably plays on an oled display, and has a game with prebaked lighting.
Looks like we’re from a different galaxies, as I never seen oled display for PC in my eyes(I know they exist, but they are extremely rare where I am)
More interestingly, lamps in video games use the same amount of real electricity if they are on or off.
Not necessarily, on OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs) a light that’s turned off is using less power because the pixels the lamp is displayed on (and the ones around it too) are dimmer.
OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs)
Probably not for most people, due to cost. More realistic for portable devices where battery saving is a thing, as it doesn’t seem like there’s much mainstream push for OLED (or similar equivalent) monitors that aren’t top-end (on newegg, I could only find 240Hz options).
That and often search results are for other panel technologies (IPS/TN/VA). Lower spec stuff seems to exist but you really gotta scrape the bottom of the barrel (portable monitors) to find some niche product.
Monitors no, TVs very much so.
TVs very much so
Very much so… what? A quick glance, they’re expensive AF (riddled with “smart” features and now AI, gigantic on top of 4K etc) too.
Sure I guess there’s actually a chance a few impulsively bought one at a big-box store (or “on sale” for the full price of a non-OLED TV), but it’s more likely they bought “LED” which is marketing speak for local dimming (not even close to OLED turning pixels off).
I’m not sure sub-£550 ($700) with reasonable sizes (42"), really counts at expensive AF anymore (not cheap but not expensive AF). But each to their own.
Alright sure, maybe. But LCD screens are ubiquitous, and most people probably aren’t looking to buy more displays. In a similar vein, early 4K adopters probably don’t have much reason… if they can just be happy with what they already have.
It is good enough to be the last thing to upgrade, especially looking at the chunk of cost it’d be when lumped in with PC/console cost. (also, selling is probably not for everyone even if less-modern HDTVs had any resale value, and at ~42" you might even not get any quick takers even if free)
A quick look at the Steam survey, ~56% of users are still using 1080p and ~20% are using 1440p. If OLED is almost exclusive to 4K and/or 240Hz many will likely continue to ignore it.
Also if you don’t have the hardware+content, it also doesn’t really make sense. That’s additional cost, and you may even need to look specifically for content created that works well with OLED (if not created with it in mind). Higher-speeed broadband availability/cost and streaming enshittification(+encoding quality) may be factors here too.
And burn-in seems to still be a thing, at least with some types/models.
So I see this as a long way off for mass adoption, similar to VR. And more to my point that it’s more of an exception than a norm.
EDIT: Also just saw QDEL, seems a year away still but may fix burn-in and cost (especially if it is pushed to lower end, print manufacturing may allow it). Though who knows, I’m also seeing tandem OLED (except it seems to make cost worse).
A few things:
- I disagree that LCD is good enough, especially for living room gaming. It is the best and most significant upgrade I’ve ever done, by a long way.
- In terms of Steam Survey, again no arguments from me, oled monitors are rare, I was arguing that TVs are not.
- There isn’t such thing as content that works well with OLED, everything looks significantly better, especially with HDR, which almost everything supports and has done for a significant period of time.
- As someone that has been using an OLED TV for 5+ years, burn-in really isn’t an issue, there’s not a trace of burn-in on either of my TVs, or any of my portable devices with OLEDs. The only time I’ve ever experienced burn-in on an OLED was a Nexus 5, which is so long ago, that it’s almost irrelevant. In the case of the Nexus 5, the only reason it ended up with burn-in is because I enabled the developer option to keep the screen on at all times, resulting in the status bar burning into the screen. All modern OLED displays take burn-in into account and run screen cleaning occasionally, which isn’t noticeable as the screen just appears a black. So unless someone is running a news channel with a static logo 24/7 on the screen, they’re not going to have issues with burn-in. It’s worth noting I have an OLED TV on my desk too (that one was indeed on sale, for ~400 IIRC), and that has static content such as an Apple logo (work laptop 😞), on it for hours each day, with no burn-in.
