Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My OLED (QD-OLED) TV ( Samsung S92C 77") has a peak power consumption of 460W. That's a LOT. Much more than my gaming PC or the PS5.
Even if we talk about peak power avg power will be still more than most of CRTs. I do not understand why there is no market regulations regarding consumed power. In EU there are special labels with grades (best grade "A" and most TV have "G" or "F" grade). There is no ANY modern TV that has the lowest power consumption "A" or "B" or even "C". All these regulations are fake because do not force manufacturers to improve technology significantly and then increase screen brigthness to abnormal levels to keep power consumption on the similar/same level or make it lower. Modern 65" TVs based on LED have max power about 550W which is abnormal because we replaced CRTs because they are large, heavy and consume lot of power (~150W).
 
Last edited:
Even if we talk about peak power (avg power will be still more than most of CRTs). I do not understand why there is no market regulations regarding consumed power. In EU there are special labels with grades (best grade "A" and most TV have "G" or "F" grade). There is no ANY modern TV that has the lowest power consumption "A" or "B" or even "C". All these regulations are fake because do not force manufacturers to improve technology siginifcantly and then increase screen brigthness to abnormal levels to keep power consumption on the similar/same level or make it lower.
Regardless, micro-LED is the only solution but it's a future tech so for now, dual stack OLED will be the only solution for future Macs. But even then, professionals will still prefer and use LCD based monitors until dual stack OLED proven to be trustworthy.
 
The M1+ MacBook Pro displays can be hard on the eyes. I never liked working more than two or three hours on mine. Wasn't such a problem as I usually had an external monitor available, but something to keep in mind.

This is not an aesthetic issue. The display looks great. It's something about the refresh rates (not perceptible to the naked eye). Had same issue with M1 iPad Pro, so stayed with iPad Pro 2018, which doesn't have the same inky blacks but creates very little eye strain.
 
Even if we talk about peak power avg power will be still more than most of CRTs. I do not understand why there is no market regulations regarding consumed power. In EU there are special labels with grades (best grade "A" and most TV have "G" or "F" grade). There is no ANY modern TV that has the lowest power consumption "A" or "B" or even "C". All these regulations are fake because do not force manufacturers to improve technology significantly and then increase screen brigthness to abnormal levels to keep power consumption on the similar/same level or make it lower. Modern 65" TVs based on LED have max power about 550W which is abnormal because we replaced CRTs because they are large, heavy and consume lot of power (~150W).
Ya’ll are crazy, I have a 50” Plasma here (one of the last & best models) and it will eat 400-450w continuously. Not peak. All the time, I have measured it. The technology was about double the power consumption of (smaller) CRT televisions, although for extremely dark scenes the plasma might use significantly less than normal any time there’s normal content on the screen it will be a power hog.

I think it’s been a long while since people have been in the room with a high-end Plasma, they will quickly heat the entire area up if you don’t enable power saving modes. Still look great though even in 2024 if you got the right model.

My OLED TV uses much less than half that power in most cases, but it’s not 77” either.

Peak consumption when looking at a HDR white screen makes an enormous difference for OLED but that is not the normal use case. Get a UPS that shows you the power draw to get a better idea of continuous use, it could be lower but there are options like buying a TV that isn’t the size of a wall, tuning on power saving options, etc.

Many lightbulbs used to be up to 150w a piece, technology is improving fairly rapidly. There are also no consumer CRTs outside of Japan that were larger than 36” so what we have now is a massive improvement there too.
 
Last edited:
What I want the most is an ultra-lightweight MacBook pro.
Me too, a 12" Macbook M2/M3 but now that the Mac mini is so tiny, with an iPad/sidecar as a display and a small bluetooth keyboard, that could work? Kind of :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: nycgeo
I tried Vivid app but despite their advertisement, it only reached up to 700 nit so the real 1000 nit at max would be quite impossible. Even M4 iPad Pro's SDR was 1000 nit but it never did. I would say there are no such things as 1000 nit as it's quite impossible to reach and sustain.
And did you disable the automatic brightness level before the measures on Mac and iPad?
 
And did you disable the automatic brightness level before the measures on Mac and iPad?
Using auto brightness is meaningless as it only reach the max brightness IF the device is facing the sun light which nobody would do that and use it in such environment.
 
Ya’ll are crazy, I have a 50” Plasma here (one of the last & best models) and it will eat 400-450w continuously. Not peak.

My OLED TV uses much less than half that power in most cases, but it’s not 77” either.

Many lightbulbs used to be up to 150w a piece, technology is improving fairly rapidly.
Amount of electronic devices increase rapidly with power demanding per family year by year more than technology progress to reduce power losses eg. brushless motors used in tools and whitegoods, GaAn chargers, LED LCDs etc. Nowdays we have ATX PSUs about 2kW sold for home use, Intel CPUs that consume more than ever and typical 65W PSU for laptop is not enogh.This is insane assuming that humans in modern games still move like toy puppets. Without power limit regulations we will kill this planet sooner than later and leave a desert for future generations. Crypto mining and AI GPU farms will speed up the process of climate changes and nobody cares about it because they sell us fairytale using „green energy” slogan. Most of nuclear plants in France that recquire fresh water (to cool reactor) have a serious problems because there is no enough water in rivers during summer months. EU charge vehicle manufacturers for exceeding emissions and set emission limits. They set power limits for vacuum cleaners used maybe 1h and twice a week while they do not set power limits for LED TVs or PCs used many hours each day or even 24hrs per day. There are so many absurds and politicians do nothing with real power consumption. Most of consumers do not care about it (they care only about a cost buying another useless „eco” device to charge from power socket) - 65”, 77”, 100”, 150”, 200” TV at home and 100W, 150W, 200W, 300W, 500W… phone chargers. Millions of fully working old chargers from EU landed in Africa countries (to be eco friendly) due to USB-C phone chargers that… consume more watts than ever! To conclude: since technology progress slowed down (TVs, CPUs, PSUs etc.) it would be good to see market regulations for total power budget limit for home use devices eg. gaming laptops (90W and later 65W), multimedia laptop/PC 50W in 2025, 35W in 2027 and so on. The same with PSUs, GPUs, TVs etc. If companies want to achieve 3000 nits brightness in 100” TV then needs to put more money on R&D to find a way how to handle it within eg. 100W power budget. Consumers are like kids who wants more and more (this is not an evolution since most of the people watch chinese Tik-Tok whose task is to remove the pulp from the american/european brain) but do we need to buy everything what our kids want? I do not think so.
 
Last edited:
Amount of electronic devices increase rapidly with power demanding per family year by year more than technology progress to reduce power losses eg. brushless motors used in tools and whitegoods, GaAn chargers, LED LCDs etc. Nowdays we have ATX PSUs about 2kW sold for home use, Intel CPUs that consume more than ever and typical 65W PSU for laptop is not enogh.This is insane assuming that humans in modern games still move like toy puppets. Without power limit regulations we will kill this planet sooner than later and leave a desert for future generations. Crypto mining and AI GPU farms will speed up the process of climate changes and nobody cares about it because they sell us fairytale using „green energy” slogan. Most of nuclear plants in France that recquire fresh water (to cool reactor) have a serious problems because there is no enough water in rivers during summer months. EU charge vehicle manufacturers for exceeding emissions and set emission limits. They set power limits for vacuum cleaners used maybe 1h and twice a week while they do not set power limits for LED TVs or PCs used many hours each day or even 24hrs per day. There are so many absurds and politicians do nothing with real power consumption. Most of consumers do not care about it (they care only about a cost buying another useless „eco” device to charge from power socket) - 65”, 77”, 100”, 150”, 200” TV at home and 100W, 150W, 200W, 300W, 500W… phone chargers. Millions of fully working old chargers from EU landed in Africa countries (to be eco friendly) due to USB-C phone chargers that… consume more watts than ever! To conclude: since technology progress slowed down (TVs, CPUs, PSUs etc.) it would be good to see market regulations for total power budget limit for home use devices eg. gaming laptops (90W and later 65W), multimedia laptop/PC 50W in 2025, 35W in 2027 and so on. The same with PSUs, GPUs, TVs etc. If companies want to achieve 3000 nits brightness in 100” TV then needs to put more money on R&D to find a way how to handle it within eg. 100W power budget. Consumers are like kids who wants more and more (this is not an evolution since most of the people watch chinese Tik-Tok whose task is to remove the pulp from the american/european brain) but do we need to buy everything what our kids want? I do not think so.
I’ll have to look up the France nuclear thing, I agree about crypto and somewhat agree about GenAI demands.

I know a reasonable amount about this. Consumer devices are a drop in the bucket as far as climate damaging power use, manufacturing is another story though.

I track my kwh and it has definitely gone down over the past 10+ years and I advocate for climate policy when I can along with some other activists. Something like 85% of my electricity comes from sustainable sources but this depends on where you live and what you have access to.

I was just saying the newest technology isn’t always using more, in the case of OLED vs. Plasma it was less, for Plasma the materials climate impact cost was likely less (although this is an informed guess) vs. CRTs, and we’ve eliminated a lot of dangerous chemicals etc. in manufacturing that means recycling electronics is now possible in many (but not all) cases.

Greenwashing is definitely a thing though, and wealthy people that drive EVs and replace them every few years or lease are doing significantly more damage than maintaining old vehicles as one example. I’ve done the math and I’d have to drive a new EV vehicle for about 12 years in order to come close to matching the low amount of pollution my well-maintained ICE vehicle produces in that time, and many households in the US and Canada will go through 2-3 or more in that period. It’s really quite shocking when you look at the numbers. Consumption is the issue that drives much of this.

We have to take wins where we can get them, and try to demand better climate action overall, but honestly the consumptive nature of our society will not change anytime soon and we’ve very likely already passed critical tipping points, which doesn’t mean to throw in the towel, but the main thing consumers can do is… not consume. Which will crash the economy because it relies on it.

The next 20ish years are going to be wild, because we’ve already hit carbon overshoot. Runaway processes are in place and if you live in an area that is getting bad due to climate change, I’d strongly suggest making a plan to move eventually if you’re able to do so because things are going to get rough.

Here’s a very good paper on this topic that shows how the capacity for the earth to be a carbon sink pretty much entirely gone as of 2023. It didn’t really make the major media because it will scare the hell out of people if they understood the ramifications: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12447

Edit to add: One final thing to keep in mind is idle power states have gotten dramatically better over the last 15 years. When I had them, my Mac Pro 2010 idled at around 140w, my 2006 Mac Pro idled at around 200w due to FB-DIMMs and being dual processor, and that again is continuous use. Now my entire “high end” PC with discrete graphics card and monitor will use lesss than 70w when doing desktop work, and at true idle it drops below 30w. Apple Silicon is even better at this, but my UPS’ measurement tool only goes so low.
 
Last edited:
I was just saying the newest technology isn’t always using more, in the case of OLED vs. Plasma it was less, for Plasma the materials climate impact cost was likely less (although this is an informed guess) vs. CRTs, and we’ve eliminated a lot of dangerous chemicals etc. in manufacturing that means recycling electronics is now possible in many (but not all) cases.

Greenwashing is definitely a thing though, and wealthy people that drive EVs and replace them every few years…

We have to take wins where we can get them, and try to demand better climate action overall, but honestly the consumptive nature of our society will not change anytime soon…

Edit to add: One final thing to keep in mind is idle power states have gotten dramatically better over the last 15 years.
Your findings are correct and I was too general in my post (possibly because I checked power for LED backlit LCDs rather than OLED). I had in mind modern LED backlit LCD (550W max power) vs 50” plasma LG 50PT351 (181W max power). However for some plasma TVs (Panasonic) measured numbers where like you mentioned. Plasma technology was not perfect at all because plasma cells longevity is limited (pdp voltages need to be adjusted with time) and lot of heat was generated however this technology was much more reliable. In case of LED LCDs reliability is really poor (these based on CCFLs were much better in this term).

Regarding EV vehicles the problem is weight, infrastructure that recquire a lot of space (cost of land), still there is no one standard of charging socket/plug, there is a risk of rapid fire for driver and passengers and most important… this was and still is just a temporary stage till hydrogen but some companies like Ford, Geely (Volvo), VW/Audi put R&D investment in just one direction so they need to harvest profits first. Especially chinese companies are really aggresive - they force EVs because they want to kill automotive industry in EU and US (end of the middle class). They start to sell „low priced” EVs but comparing cost of energy, taxes and labour hour between US, EU, JP and China is not fair (even if vehicle quality is quite good). Everyone who know chinese RMA policy (eg. Asus) realize that they provide „sell and forget” strategy (eg. Aliexpress) where you even did not receive any bill and funded returns are just a theory. Selling products is to provide good long-term support, spare parts during decades, tools, dealer network with repair shops (skilled technicians) etc. This is a high cost that chinese companies need to avoid to get good profits.

For example wise japanese manufacturers diversify solutions because they know that knew that we need to diversify a power sources.

EU put pressure on EVs because western countries has a lot of nuclear plants (GB, France, Spain, Italy etc.) and they want to reduce noise/exhaust emissions in main cities. Under this assumption increased vehicle mass (power demand/force to move) is not a big deal (some cost they decide to bear) and EVs make sense. But middle eastern EU countries base on coal power plants where EVs will not reduce CO2 emissions (only reduce noise and exhaust emissions in cities).

I am talking about weight because during decades many automotive trends, approaches and solutions were taken from motorsport and F1 where they fight about every pound and aerodynamics. EVs (especially SUVs and crossovers) stay totally opposite to reducing mass and aerodynamics.

Regarding consumer trends I realize that it is fight against windmills. I do not want to regulate any life or to stop using large TV however regulators can do more. If they create power energy label „A” so I would like see such TVs on the market or I would like to force companies like Intel to increase perf per Watt ratio in the similar fashion like Apple done it with M1 SoC. I can’t believe that US cannot fund company competitive to TSMC while most of photolitography devices are sold by Dutch ASML company. Are Taiwan scientists and engineers better than US or EU colleagues? I do not think so.

Regarding reduced idle power state possibly you are right. However if you compare power numbers for iPhones (low power mobile device) sometimes you have lower numbers than for iPhone 16. Eg Idle AVG for iPhone 16 is 1.42W while 1W for iPhone 15 and 13 and 0.8W for iPhone 14. Load AVG for iPhone 16 is 4.21W while 6W for 15, 5.4W for 14 and 4.5W for 13 model (Notebookcheck test of iPhone 16).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: novagamer
Using auto brightness is meaningless as it only reach the max brightness IF the device is facing the sun light which nobody would do that and use it in such environment.
It is not matching with my experience. If you turn off the auto brightness in the dark room at 100% brightness, you will see stronger brightness. It will be happening so slowly but absolutely perceptible. Try it.
IMO the correct display brigthness measurement means all auto functions are off, and you are in the dark room.
 
It is not matching with my experience. If you turn off the auto brightness in the dark room at 100% brightness, you will see stronger brightness. It will be happening so slowly but absolutely perceptible. Try it.
IMO the correct display brigthness measurement means all auto functions are off, and you are in the dark room.
Screenshot 2024-11-04 at 4.39.19 PM.jpg


I just measured the brightness and it NEVER come close to 1000 nit. It was below 700 nit. I never used the auto brightness and used Vivid directly and yet this is what I got. Besides, I never said I used auto brightness.

Why don't you measure the brightness and let me know if you truly believe Vivid can reach 1000 nit?
 
View attachment 2446872

I just measured the brightness and it NEVER come close to 1000 nit. It was below 700 nit. I never used the auto brightnessb Band used Vivid directly and yet this is what I got. Besides, I never said I used auto brightness.

Why don't you measure the brightness and let me know if you truly believe Vivid can reach 1000 nit?
My question was did you swicth off that? True, you didn’t mentioned you nevere used auto brightness but you didn’t mentioned this fact earlier. It was only my question in order to reveal the reason of lack of brightness…
I have no tool to do that, I have M4 13 iPad which theoretically also represents 1000 nits. After installation of Vivid, the M3 16 MBP seems to be more bright than iPad.
Why apple would have said that this is 1000 nits if no? They don’t think somebody check that while all features are under checking immediately?
Who knows…?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sunny5
My question was did you swicth off that? True, you didn’t mentioned you nevere used auto brightness but you didn’t mentioned this fact earlier. It was only my question in order to reveal the reason of lack of brightness…
I have no tool to do that, I have M4 13 iPad which theoretically also represents 1000 nits. After installation of Vivid, the M3 16 MBP seems to be more bright than iPad.
Why apple would have said that this is 1000 nits if no? They don’t think somebody check that while all features are under checking immediately?
Who knows…?

Since when the auto brightness relevant? Even Vivid didnt mention that and yet you keep asking that meaningless statement.

Because M4 iPad Pro does NOT reach 1000 nit or beyond at SDR. It still remains at 600 nit just like others and that's why your M3 MBP looks brighter but it would be around 700 nit, not 1000 nit.

It's called advertisement. It's not the first time that Apple fool customers.
 
Since when the auto brightness relevant? Even Vivid didnt mention that and yet you keep asking that meaningless statement.

Because M4 iPad Pro does NOT reach 1000 nit or beyond at SDR. It still remains at 600 nit just like others and that's why your M3 MBP looks brighter but it would be around 700 nit, not 1000 nit.

It's called advertisement. It's not the first time that Apple fool customers.
Ok, I made a litte non-professional comparison.
1.jpg: M4 and M1 iPad Pro at 100% brightness (M4: 1000, M1: 600 by Apple)
2. jpg: M3 MBP without Vivid (600 nit), M4 iPad Pro (1000 nit), M1 (600 nit)
3.jpg: M3 MBP with Vivid (1000 nit), M4 iPad Pro (1000 nit), M1 (600 nit)
 

Attachments

  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    84.5 KB · Views: 33
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    87.6 KB · Views: 36
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    99.4 KB · Views: 36
Since when the auto brightness relevant? Even Vivid didnt mention that and yet you keep asking that meaningless statement.

Because M4 iPad Pro does NOT reach 1000 nit or beyond at SDR. It still remains at 600 nit just like others and that's why your M3 MBP looks brighter but it would be around 700 nit, not 1000 nit.

It's called advertisement. It's not the first time that Apple fool customers.
Expect it does matter on iPad and my measurements has around 940 nits with adaptive brightness on. You can try it yourself….
 
Ok, I made a litte non-professional comparison.
1.jpg: M4 and M1 iPad Pro at 100% brightness (M4: 1000, M1: 600 by Apple)
2. jpg: M3 MBP without Vivid (600 nit), M4 iPad Pro (1000 nit), M1 (600 nit)
3.jpg: M3 MBP with Vivid (1000 nit), M4 iPad Pro (1000 nit), M1 (600 nit)

Your test does not prove anything as you don't know whether they are 1000 nit or not. Besides, that difference can be made by 100 nit.
 
Your test does not prove anything as you don't know whether they are 1000 nit or not. Besides, that difference can be made by 100 nit.
It could be 100 but not 🤣🤣🤣 In the real view difference is highest than in the picture. So if the M1 600, the others around 1000.
The most important thing: the M3 MBP with Vivid and M4 iPad Pro 13 INCREDIBLE bright (!!!), I use them half brightness in average circumstances.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: sunny5
It could be 100 but not 🤣🤣🤣 In the real view difference is highest than in the picture. So if the M1 600, the others around 1000.
The most important thing: the M3 MBP with Vivid and M4 iPad Pro 13 INCREDIBLE bright (!!!), I use them half brightness in average circumstances.
And I told you, that's just 600~700 nit, not 1000 nit. I thought it was 1000 nit by just looking at it but when I measure it with a tool, it never did. M4 iPad Pro doesn't even reach 1000 nit without auto brightness with direct sunlight. Clearly, you are only telling it by look of it.
 
And I told you, that's just 600~700 nit, not 1000 nit. I thought it was 1000 nit by just looking at it but when I measure it with a tool, it never did. M4 iPad Pro doesn't even reach 1000 nit without auto brightness with direct sunlight. Clearly, you are only telling it by look of it.
It is an independent company… M3 16 MAX and M4 iPad Pro.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2609.png
    IMG_2609.png
    741.3 KB · Views: 40
  • IMG_2610.png
    IMG_2610.png
    697.9 KB · Views: 34
  • Disagree
Reactions: sunny5
It is an independent company… M3 16 MAX and M4 iPad Pro.
And the test does not indicate how they achieve the brightness which makes it useless especially if it depends on the auto brightness or not. How do you know if it's only SDR? At least MBP does not support auto brightness to go beyond SDR which is a huge difference. Clearly, you dont know what you are comparing with and if you wanna prove it, you MUST measure M4 iPad Pro with a device.

 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.