I see! Thanks for explaining. Is the brightness limiter the reason why it took all these years for us to get OLED? I remember hearing that it was a massive limitation to not have each individual diode die prematurely, and this was the reason why they could only make small displays for a long time?
No, the brightness limiter has been a factor in all emissive displays.
What I meant by that comment is that they are still having to limit the brightness of the panel significantly when large areas of it are illuminated.
That's why the peak brightness of the current OLEDs is about 800 nits when only 10% of the screen is lit, but when you display a full white screen it drops to 150 nits.
It would actually be quite interesting if someone measured the power consumption, but I would expect that it's similar for both scenarios.
LCDs have typically not had any form of brightness limiter in place, in part due to their efficiency.
The new FALD HDR LCDs do now though, due to the higher brightness that HDR is pushing.
Samsung's KS9000 LCD has a peak brightness of 1500 nits and that drops to about 500 nits for full-screen white.
Generally the more efficient a display gets, the less they have to limit the brightness.
You could always just go brighter and consume more power, but I think that's starting to be quite highly regulated in many places now so nothing is likely to have anything like plasma power consumption again.
OLEDs are certainly going to be more efficient than plasmas, but perhaps not as efficient as LCDs yet.
Rtings lists average power consumption for the 55" E6 OLED as 96W and maximum as 146W, while the Samsung 55KS9000 is 53W/142W.
I don't know whether it's based on size or not, but after checking a few reviews it looks like 55" TVs at least are limited to a maximum of around 150W by whatever regulations are in place now for example. (seems like rtings prefers 55" models)
Well replacing the TV was the only change I did in October, so a few weeks ago when I saw the energy bill from november, I was surprised it was so much lower than usually. My new Monitor is a LG as well- a 34-inch ultrawide. I have been using my 60-inch plasma for almost a year as a monitor.
Ah well it's not exactly like-for-like when going to something 73% smaller, and a monitor will be edge-lit which is very efficient.
The difference would not have been so dramatic if you had replaced it with a 65" display, whether that's OLED, FALD LCD, or Edge-lit LCD.
So that $45/month reduction in your power bill is not quite so surprising then - especially if you were using the plasma as a PC monitor.
My PC is almost 7 years old. When I build it had 2 Geforce 470 in SLI- These where super overclocked based on the Nvidia Fermi arcitecture. These where loud and they got hot. They where the worst power/thermal performances in Nvidias history, and it was after this generation they went into power efficency!
I think the big change that shows how far we've come is that the 970 I have in it now, is so cool, so silent and it draws little power. And the CPU - i7 4790 also draws a lot power than the old i7 950. So in these 7 years I just stuck with the same Corsair 1000Watt power supply.
You might want to think about replacing it. Depending on the model, a 7 year warranty was common for the higher-end Corsair power supplies back then.
The power supply is something that I would always replace once the warranty period is up, because you don't want it to blow and potentially take out other components with it.
When I got my 60 inch LG PK950 Plasma in 2010 it was on the dawn of the first consumer 3D TVs. Avatar had come out and the new models was going to have 3D. So I thought I would buy this top of the line LG Plasma- It was more affordable in the wake of the 3D TV releases. So I go to AVSforum- The guys who are the leading authority on TVs (?) and they tell me, and hundreds of others that image retention is barely a problem. All you have to do is go through the break in cycle the first 100 hours.
The problem is when you get a TV like this, the problems don't show in the beginning, and sometimes shipping a product like this (or a dishwasher, or a fridge) is just going to be extremely expensive.
I've been happy with the performance of my TV. The colors and contrast where amazing. Compared to the faded pastal colored tinted bitch LCD displays of 2010 this one was a winner. But fuck me, has it been annoying and stressful paying 4000 USD for a product that needed babying, that had this energy consumption and expelled this clicking noise because it was overheating (a common problem on these).
I want a big ass screen, but I want reliability. If some of the manufactureres would test the TVs for the first 100-200 hours for a break-in phase that would make me more assured. The other thing- if you're playing games or using it as a monitor retention is going to be a problem.
My image retention is permanent. It might not be burn in, but those logos never went away. it's very very faint but it still bums me out.
By most accounts that I've seen from owners, image retention is very transient on these OLEDs, and the worst of it is usually fixed by leaving the TV on standby overnight to run a compensation cycle.
However
it does happen - even on the 2016 models, and especially with HDR gaming since that pushes the brightness much higher while there are static elements on-screen.
Outside of commercial usage, I've not heard of an LG OLED suffering from permanent burn-in or long-term image retention.
So while they may not be as prone to it as the plasmas that many owners also claimed never got image retention/burn-in, I would still be hesitant to buy one based on my intended use, which would mainly be as a PC monitor for the desktop and games, for many hours a day.
I'm not saying that anyone else
shouldn't buy one, but they should make an informed decision and people shouldn't be posting here saying that image retention
can't happen - just as the plasma evangelists were doing 5 years ago.
I'd still rather have a display where I don't have to even think about it, where I'm not going to be so tired one night that I fall asleep in front of the TV and possibly wake up to a display with long-term or even permanent damage.
I'm just really excited to see what LG, Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony are going to have on display at CES.
They're each going to have something different on display and that's very exciting.
Sony's OLED is probably going to be the least exciting from a "tech" perspective since they'll be using an LG panel, but it may end up being the display that I actually buy if they get the image processing and features right.
The main sticking point with OLED for me is still the motion handling.
While I would prefer not to have the worry of image retention/burn-in, if someone fixes the motion handling
or adds G-Sync support (since the two are incompatible) that's probably enough for me to buy one.
