«

Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a users
refresh rate on their monitor...
Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
one set at 60hz refresh?

now we came up with both yes and no...
yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
no, because either way it is lit up the same.

or my reply... ummm, dunno.

so, anyone able to tell me?

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a users
> refresh rate on their monitor...
> Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
> one set at 60hz refresh?
>
> now we came up with both yes and no...
> yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
> no, because either way it is lit up the same.
>
> or my reply... ummm, dunno.
>
> so, anyone able to tell me?

No difference, its still illuminating the same phosphor in the raster
with the same beam current, all you are changing is the velocity of the
beam.

Alex Axolotl wrote:
> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>
>> Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a
>> users refresh rate on their monitor...
>> Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
>> one set at 60hz refresh?
>>
>> now we came up with both yes and no...
>> yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
>> no, because either way it is lit up the same.
>>
>> or my reply... ummm, dunno.
>>
>> so, anyone able to tell me?
>
>
> No difference, its still illuminating the same phosphor in the raster
> with the same beam current, all you are changing is the velocity of the
> beam.
>
A marginal increase for CRT monitors due to higher currents in the
deflection circuits, but no difference for an LCD monitor.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:32:19 +1300, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
<> wrote:

>Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a users
>refresh rate on their monitor...
>Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
>one set at 60hz refresh?
>
>now we came up with both yes and no...
>yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
>no, because either way it is lit up the same.
>
>or my reply... ummm, dunno.
>
>so, anyone able to tell me?

Is this the nerdiest post I've seen this week? We have a new winner!

--
BOINC SETI
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/sta...1469&trans=off

In article <> in nz.comp on Thu, 18 Nov 2004
10:57:08 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> says...
> Alex Axolotl wrote:
> > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> >
> >> Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a
> >> users refresh rate on their monitor...
> >> Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
> >> one set at 60hz refresh?
> >>
> >> now we came up with both yes and no...
> >> yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
> >> no, because either way it is lit up the same.
> >>
> >> or my reply... ummm, dunno.
> >>
> >> so, anyone able to tell me?
> >
> >
> > No difference, its still illuminating the same phosphor in the raster
> > with the same beam current, all you are changing is the velocity of the
> > beam.
> >
> A marginal increase for CRT monitors due to higher currents in the
> deflection circuits, but no difference for an LCD monitor.

The refresh for an LCD screen shouldn't be altered, it doesn't need to
be.

On , , Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:42:36 +1300, Re: monitor power
consumption vs refresh rate., Patrick Dunford
<> wrote:

>In article <> in nz.comp on Thu, 18 Nov 2004
>10:57:08 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> says...
>> Alex Axolotl wrote:
>> > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gday... an interesting question came up today as I was changing a
>> >> users refresh rate on their monitor...
>> >> Does the same monitor set at 80hz refresh use more or less power than
>> >> one set at 60hz refresh?
>> >>
>> >> now we came up with both yes and no...
>> >> yes, because it is refreshing faster, therefore it has to use more.
>> >> no, because either way it is lit up the same.
>> >>
>> >> or my reply... ummm, dunno.
>> >>
>> >> so, anyone able to tell me?
>> >
>> >
>> > No difference, its still illuminating the same phosphor in the raster
>> > with the same beam current, all you are changing is the velocity of the
>> > beam.
>> >
>> A marginal increase for CRT monitors due to higher currents in the
>> deflection circuits, but no difference for an LCD monitor.
>
>The refresh for an LCD screen shouldn't be altered, it doesn't need to
>be.

You still have to set it up in the first place. That may not be
counted as an alteration but it is a change.
>

Damon Nomad wrote:
>>The refresh for an LCD screen shouldn't be altered, it doesn't need to
>>be.

> You still have to set it up in the first place. That may not be
> counted as an alteration but it is a change.

my work one(18" Dell something) looks horrible at 60Hz, but perfect at 75Hz.

it defaults to 60 for some un-godly reason.

--
Dave.net.nz
reply addy is e
nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> Damon Nomad wrote:
>
>>> The refresh for an LCD screen shouldn't be altered, it doesn't need
>>> to be.
>
>
>> You still have to set it up in the first place. That may not be
>> counted as an alteration but it is a change.
>
>
> my work one(18" Dell something) looks horrible at 60Hz, but perfect at
> 75Hz.
>
> it defaults to 60 for some un-godly reason.
>
it defaults? sure it isnt windows that defaults? My samsung syncmaster
runs best at 75Hz, but for some reason windows likes to set monitors to
the lowest resolution they support (probably for compatibilty) when ever
I change video mode, However I find the Refresh rate override feature in
my ATi graphics drivers quite useful.

David wrote:
>> my work one(18" Dell something) looks horrible at 60Hz, but perfect at
>> 75Hz.
>> it defaults to 60 for some un-godly reason.

> it defaults? sure it isnt windows that defaults?

well if it is windows that default there, linux does it too.

--
Dave.net.nz
reply addy is e
nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
>>> my work one(18" Dell something) looks horrible at 60Hz, but perfect
>>> at 75Hz.
>>> it defaults to 60 for some un-godly reason.

>> it defaults? sure it isnt windows that defaults?

> well if it is windows that default there, linux does it too.

maybe it is in the way that the monitor "advertises" available refresh
rates... maybe it offers both, with a preference for 60hz to "prolong
life" or similar... not sure how this sort of thing is done.

--
Dave.net.nz
reply addy is e
nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg