Power Consumption

With the U2711 Dell opted for a CCFL backlight to deliver a wider color gamut. Apple moved to LED to reduce the size of the display's chassis and cut power consumption. Even while charging a MacBook Pro and running at full brightness the 27-inch LED Cinema Display never got more than warm. Part of this is due to the vent in the back of the display:

The display is also just generally power efficient:

LCD Power Draw (Kill-A-Watt)

The 27-inch LED Cinema Display tops out at 98W at full brightness, only saving about 14W compared to my old 30. The power efficiency is greatly improved however. At 98W you get a brighter display than almost anything on the list. Note that this is peak power consumption without a notebook attached to the MagSafe port. I plugged a 2010 15-inch MacBook Pro that was nearly dead and measured a max power draw of 166W at the wall for the display + charging the notebook.

LCD Power Draw (Kill-A-Watt)

At the lowest brightness setting the new Cinema Display sips power, 23W to be exact. You can even go up to 50% brightness (~100 nits) and never pull more than 40W at the wall.

Processing and Input Latency Final Words
POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • Razorjackman - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Why are all the displays from 24" and below relatively inexpensive, while the +27" seem to be disproportionately expensive?

    I'm still using a HannsG 28" from 2 years ago for $400.00. I expected to get larger or denser for less by now.

    Does Moores Law apply to monitors?
    Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Because theres loads of cheap crappy TN panels in displays 24" and under, which i'd never even consider buying. Most old cheap CRT monitors would have better colours.

    When you move to 27" and especially 30" you start getting some quality IPS panels.
    You dont just get a larger display with more pixels, you get a vastly better image too.
    Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    ... You also get better viewing angles as well. Reply
  • Alexstarfire - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    True, but they were saying even the IPS panels for the 24" were $539 and up. Says so on the first page. A near doubling in price for an extra 3 inches isn't very compelling. Though, I don't know if the two 27" monitors they talk about are the cheapest for 27" monitors. Reply
  • hughlle - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Partly to do with who they are aimed at i guess. A lot of the folk opting for these high end 30" displays as opposed to just whacking an LCD tv on their desk, are using it for high end audio, graphic design etc, professional use you might say, so can be expected to spend the premium. Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    I'd suggest there is a category between high end 30" and mainstream 24". There is something wrong with the market when 24" TN is <$250 and 30" IPS is >$1000 and there is nothing in-between. Reply
  • juncture - Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - link

    These people also forgot to mention the HUGE difference being the resolution.... Try to find a 24" that has the same resolution as the $1000+ 27"-30". How was this not mentioned in this argument? Reply
  • plonk420 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    seconded .. it's either crap dirt cheap TNs for me ... or IPS (but preferrably oLED). i hope i never spend more than $140 on a TN again...

    (posting from a dying CRT ... with TN+Dell *VA as secondary)
    Reply
  • plonk420 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    seconded @B3an Reply
  • Targon - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    It has to do with yields and the production costs. It is far easier to make a PERFECT four inch display than an eight inch display, just because there is a smaller chance of dead or stuck pixels. As the size of the screen goes up, it just becomes that much harder to make a display without any problems.

    As time has gone on, with the older technologies, it has gotten easier to make larger panels that don't have problems, but now we are seeing newer technologies that raise the difficulty again.

    When you got that 28 inch display, was that a 1080p or 1080i, or 720p? These days, the LED technologies are where a lot of the focus is. Then you have the move from 60Hz to 120Hz to 240Hz. 3D is also creeping in as something that will push costs up.

    Two years ago, the cost of a 23 inch panel was MUCH higher than it is today, and you are seeing displays that could not do 1080p going away. So, now that 1080p is the norm for flat panel displays, the question is when better displays will become the norm on the desktop.

    We also have a problem with what integrated video can handle. The Radeon 3300 integrated video for example will handle 1280x1024 decently, but starts to have a bit of a problem at 1920x1080 when it comes to basic games and such. So, before the mainstream consumer can make decent use of higher resolution displays, the base level for GPUs needs to go up by a bit more to make the experience properly "smooth".

    Remember, prices come down when the manufacturers can expect high enough sales volumes to allow the drop in price to still provide a good profit. So, how many 1920x1200 displays would sell at $300 compared to 1920x1080 displays selling at $210? How about going up from there, would the general public pay for a higher quality display if their computer couldn't push the pixels well enough at the higher resolutions? Even on the gamer front, would you be willing to pay $400 for a 23 inch display with a higher resolution since the higher resolution means lower framerates?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now