http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interfaceanotherengineer wrote:There isnt enough bandwidth to drive a 2560x1600 res monitor at 120Hz.
Flying Fox wrote:I never buy that 120Hz thing so I don't know what those guys seem so unhappy about.
Spyder22446688 wrote:Flying Fox wrote:I never buy that 120Hz thing so I don't know what those guys seem so unhappy about.
I'm actually a little afraid to see a 120Hz panel myself. If it's actually as good as I've read about, I'll be ruined forever.
BlackStar wrote:1. CCFL provides higher quality than white LEDs and the backlight lasts longer. For higher quality you need to go to RGB LEDs, which cost thrice as much and raise power consumption to CRT levels. Needless to say, very few monitors use RGB LEDs - everyone is using white LEDs and heavy marketing to make you think LEDs are magically better. They are not
ludi wrote:Sort of. W-LEDs shine (hah) best on smaller display sizes and mobile devices where a CCFL would be more space intensive and the power savings for switching to LED are greatly disproportionate. On larger displays, a CCFL just gets a bit longer and draws a bit more power while W-LED physical density has to increase disproportionately for the same quantity and evenness of backlighting.
I would think longevity would have a lot to do with how often the display is power-cycled. LED output will fall off as a function of phosphor degradation, which is mainly a function of operating time, but CCFLs require an extra-high voltage jumpstart to ionize the tube before going to steady-state voltage, which substantially increases the rate of gas poisoning by the cathodes in addition to normal phosphor degradation.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests