Does 2K(1440) draw a lot more watt than 1080?

[Zarginnia]

Just curious if somone knows.

[Omega]

It all highly depends on which screen panels are being compared.

[_I_]

it will change nothing on the pc

if a monitor has the gsync module, its about 10-15 more watts than a similar non gsync display

[Zarginnia]

Escrito originalmente por _I_:

it will change nothing on the pc

if a monitor has the gsync module, its about 10-15 more watts than a similar non gsync display

But the monitor is plugged in the wall, not only the computer. Just got a new monitor so thats why im asking, does the hz make it draw more watt? atm im at 1440 180hz.

[_I_]

no, just look up the specs of the display, it will say its power consumption when on and standby

[Illusion of Progress]

Sorry to be "that person" but 2K isn't 1440p.

Okay, tantrum out of the way, as others have said, there's more to it than screen real estate. On average, yes, I would expect a higher resolution does draw more, but typically you're not changing JUST the resolution, but the size, and a whole slew of other things.

It was like when LCDs came about, they claimed MASSIVE power savings compared to CRT. It was one of those things that WAS technically true... but also not. My ancient TV lists something like 155W, and my prior CRT TV probably drew less. The reason is, my prior CRT TV was smaller.

If I change from my current PC LCD to a newer one, I imagine I'd save wattage even if I went bigger, as I'm using CCFL right now (LED backlit LCDs typically draw far less).

So you'll have to simply look up the specifications of the display, but that will likely only give you a singular average. If you're truly want to know, get something like a kill a watt meter and measure your own use with both displays.

[Zarginnia]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Sorry to be "that person" but 2K isn't 1440p.

Okay, tantrum out of the way, as others have said, there's more to it than screen real estate. On average, yes, I would expect a higher resolution does draw more, but typically you're not changing JUST the resolution, but the size, and a whole slew of other things.

It was like when LCDs came about, they claimed MASSIVE power savings compared to CRT. It was one of those things that WAS technically true... but also not. My ancient TV lists something like 155W, and my prior CRT TV probably drew less. The reason is, my prior CRT TV was smaller.

If I change from my current PC LCD to a newer one, I imagine I'd save wattage even if I went bigger, as I'm using CCFL right now (LED backlit LCDs typically draw far less).

So you'll have to simply look up the specifications of the display, but that will likely only give you a singular average. If you're truly want to know, but something like a kill a watt meter and measure your own use with both displays.

2560x1440 is not "2K"?

[rezo]

Escrito originalmente por Zarginnia:

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Sorry to be "that person" but 2K isn't 1440p.

Okay, tantrum out of the way, as others have said, there's more to it than screen real estate. On average, yes, I would expect a higher resolution does draw more, but typically you're not changing JUST the resolution, but the size, and a whole slew of other things.

It was like when LCDs came about, they claimed MASSIVE power savings compared to CRT. It was one of those things that WAS technically true... but also not. My ancient TV lists something like 155W, and my prior CRT TV probably drew less. The reason is, my prior CRT TV was smaller.

If I change from my current PC LCD to a newer one, I imagine I'd save wattage even if I went bigger, as I'm using CCFL right now (LED backlit LCDs typically draw far less).

So you'll have to simply look up the specifications of the display, but that will likely only give you a singular average. If you're truly want to know, but something like a kill a watt meter and measure your own use with both displays.

2560x1440 is not "2K"?

1080p is 2k, 1440p is 2.5k and 2160p is 4k

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por Zarginnia:

2560x1440 is not "2K"?

It's not.

4K typically refers to a resolution that is around 4,000 pixels horizontally (the "K" means "kilo" or "thousand"). 4K on TVs and monitors is often 3840 x 2160 (the "real" 4K is actually something else entirely but we won't even go into that) so 4K itself is actually a bit short of that, but it's an approximation.

So 1080p is 1920 x 1080.

1440p is 2560 x 1440.

Between 1920 and 2560, which is closer to "approximately 2000 and a bit short of it"? So if "2K" was to be either of those, it'd be 1080p.

Marketing has just slapped 2K on 1440p lazily because it somewhat recently became a mainstream rather than high end thing so now more people are being confronted with it, and 1080p is already known as 1080p, whereas 4K and such (5K, 8K, etc.) is a new way to term it, so they needed a way to retroactively label it between the two and 2K was what they went with for... whatever reason, but it's just wrong. It'd be like 2.6K if anything, but that doesn't roll off the tongue as well I guess. And, even though it'd be closer to 3K than 2K, that's still slightly off and probably oversells it a bit much (rather undersell it and push 4K).

[_I_]

the whole 'k' should just be dropped
even 'hd'
technically hd is 720p, and fhd is 1080p

just say the vertical+p if its in 16:9, or actual res if its not

[nullable]

I don't think people every really accepted HD and FHD. 720p ended up being so transitory that I think 1080p effectively become HD in most peoples minds. And then referring to 2560x1440 as QHD and 4k as QFHD is about as popular as referring to RAM in Gibibytes.

Although I would say they're good terms, you just have to understand what they mean. And therein lies the problem, you have to be weird about resolution trivia.

[my new friend]

This is why I use the full resolution when posting because 2560x1440 is not the same as 3440x1440. And most people are talking about 2560x1440, including content creators benchmarking games.

[mtono]

Escrito originalmente por Zarginnia:

Just curious if somone knows.

i would say, that the monitor doesnt need a lot more watts...just a little bit. the problem is, when you use gaming, the gfx board has a lot more to do. so you need a big gfx board and this causes the system to need a lot more watts. maybe 125 watts against 300 watts only for the gfx board.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por Snakub Plissken:

I don't think people every really accepted HD and FHD. 720p ended up being so transitory that I think 1080p effectively become HD in most peoples minds.

I think "HD" and "Full HD" conveyed well that one is greater than the other, which is sort of all it needed to do. Things went from CRT, which didn't have native resolutions, to "what is a resolution?" to consumers. Of course that probably would have fell apart when more got added, which is probably why they changed to the "xK" moniker rather than continuing the "XXHD" references. A number is easier to convey to a typical consumer than a handful of letters.

And I sort of saw 1080p as the transitory one. Back when LCDs were newer in the late 2000s and perhaps a bit in the early 2010s, you had to spend up a bit to get 1080p, and it wasn't really justified at the time for most people. Broadcast wasn't commonly 1080p at the time (much of it was still 4:3), streaming was still kicking off, the consoles of the time didn't really justify it, DVD was still the norm and didn't justify 720 was as it was, let alone higher. So it just wasn't justified, and I imagine most people who did get it, did so merely by virtue of buying a set large enough that 720 just wasn't used at that size.

720p (or technically 1366x768) was a lot of people's first LCD TV, and unless you routinely changed your TV ever 3 to 5 years, chances are many people stuck with it long enough to just skip over 1080p, because 4K quickly started being pushed so hard that it existed even at the low end.

[Raoul]

Escrito originalmente por Zarginnia:

But the monitor is plugged in the wall, not only the computer. Just got a new monitor so thats why im asking, does the hz make it draw more watt? atm im at 1440 180hz.

Higher refresh rate will draw more power but resolution is minimal difference if any.

[_I_]

res is no difference either
its the size of the display (quantity of backlight leds)