Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Displays EU

Samsung Develops Workaround For EU's 8K TV Ban (tomsguide.com) 126

Posted by BeauHD from the if-there's-a-will-there's-a-way dept.
On March 1st, a European Union regulation went into effect that effectively bans 8K TVs. This is because they exceed the new lower Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) limit that set the maximum power consumption level for all TVs at 90W, which is significantly lower than the 190W that new 8K TVs can consume. According to Tom's Guide, Samsung "seems to have already developed a workaround for this 8K TV ban." From the report: The ban is specifically based on the EEI power consumption numbers, so if you can manufacture an 8K TV that consumes less than 90W then you are in the clear. Because of this loophole, Samsung has decided to ship its 8K TVs with low-powered default settings. According to AV Magazine, the new Samsung 8K TVs will come out of the box with a "brightness-limiting eco mode" as the default brightness setting. This will allow the TVs to still meet the EEI limit while maintaining their 8K resolution.

But does this mean that Europeans will be limited to low brightness settings if they want 8K resolution? Turns out, the answer to that is, no. The E.U. regulation requires that the TVs be energy efficient out of the box, but once users have them set up, they can change to a higher brightness setting and watch to their heart's content, even though their 8K TV will now consume more power than the 90W limit set by the EEI. Other manufacturers will likely find workarounds for the E.U. regulations if Samsung's workaround is successful [...].
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Develops Workaround For EU's 8K TV Ban More

Samsung Develops Workaround For EU's 8K TV Ban

Comments Filter:

  • Sensational article about Samsung (Score:5, Informative)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:35PM (#63360181)

    I do wonder if this news article was planted to drum up outrage and get Samsung's name out there. *EVERY* Samsung TV ships in low powered ECO mode, not because of regulation, but because they wanted to stamp that wonderful energy efficiency sticker that is mandatory on all appliances with a lovely green A on it rather than an orange or red letter.

    One thing that is actually annoying (based on experience from a 4K, definitively not affected by this regulation in any way TV) is that basically every picture mode you change flashes up a warning "this setting may cause the TV to consume more power". Yeah no kidding, I'm happy having that warning once, but does it have to happen with literally every other setting you touch? Change HDR settings, warning. Change brightness setting, warning. Change eco settings, warning (no shit). Change standby duration setting, warning. We have a Frame, enabling the damn room calibration for the core feature of the TV, warning. The only thing missing is a cookie advisory popup every time I turn on the TV.

    • You deserve what you get for buying a Samsung. I literally chose a HiSense over a Samsung because for ~25% less money I got ~90% of the picture quality, and they are both Android TVs. Everything Samsung makes is shit, and then you have to pay more for it because people think their brand is good for some reason. Well, it isn't. Their electronics have a higher than normal chance of catching on fire, whether they're phones, vacuum cleaners, or washing machines.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'll be honest I'm struggling to see what the issue is here. It's clear the EU isn't banning 8K TVs, it's just banning TVs that consume too much power out the box.

      Samsung in response has realised it can release it's TVs in a low power mode that reduces output quality which people can change if they want to but that allows them to meet the power target. This opens up the market for competitors to try and produce TVs that don't need such reduced quality settings at the same power level. If someone can produce

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arQon ( 447508 )

        The issue, rather obviously, is that the law was either drafted with staggering incompetence; or created purely as virtue-signalling with this blatant elephant-sized hole left in it deliberately.

        It has literally no impact on energy efficiency. Even a potato could foresee that the response would be to just ship the TV with the backlight set to 1% and an OOBE that says "click here to 'calibrate the TV for your environment'" or whatever that instantly sets it back to 80% and draws 3x the imaginary limit this l

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Askmum ( 1038780 )
      So basically your message is: don't buy a Samsung TV.

  • Does this regulation make exceptions for larger televisions, or do they just assume that no one in the EU needs a TV above a certain screen size? 90 watts really isn't much, I think I had more wattage than that running through my subwoofers in the first car I had as a teenager.

    • I mean, it wasn't that long ago 100 watt light bulbs were common in every home, so your point is taken well.

      I don't think half of us need half of what we want though... to my point, whatever you had in your car as a teenager, I will just assume was pretty awesome. I don't know a lot about speakers etc. I just liken it to me as a teenager, I spent every paycheck in my computer, and I had 10x the computer I actually needed, all I really had was bragging rights.

      fast forward to today, I actually regularly us

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        I appreciate that you enjoy browsing the web on a pi 400. Do what makes you happy. But I don't understand how government can tell me that I can't have an 85" LED TV or that I can't purchase a Class A audio amplifier because it uses too much electricity. There's prudence, and then there's intrusion. When will it stop and where will it end?

        • or that I can't purchase a Class A audio amplifier because it uses too much electricity.

          It's funny you mention amplifiers, because I have a Jolida JD102B tube amp as part of my living room entertainment center and according to the specs, it pulls 90 watts at idle. It's a heavy, horribly inefficient beast of a thing, but it's also the oldest piece of consumer electronics I own and still works as good as the day I bought it. Efficiency isn't everything; there's something to be said for devices that aren't designed to become e-waste.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lsllll ( 830002 )
            Same here. Most of my audio equipment is old and has been chugging along just fine. Better yet, they're so simple in circuitry that I can actually fix things, like when capacitors are nearing their EOL, something I can't do with decent switching power supplies and class-D amps for the most part. But that's besides the point. Charge me for electricity, but don't tell me that I can't run my heater in the summer. It's not the government's business.

          • The fact that it still works does not mean that it's worth powering on. It's losing you more money every time you do. But, some people do like lighting their cigars with Hamiltons and, you just have to hope that they snorted coke with them first.

            • The fact that it still works does not mean that it's worth powering on. It's losing you more money every time you do.

              If it makes you feel better, I use all LED lighting throughout my home and Tuya smart automation extensively (even the bathroom fans will automatically shut off if left on). I think I've more than offset enough usage to have some audio equipment that's a bit of a power hog.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by U0K ( 6195040 )
          Technicalities. You are allowed to have and operate such a TV as much as you can afford to pay your electricity bills.

          It's a regulation for official sales on the market. So you can't officially buy it on the EU market. But if you get it from elsewhere you can, there's your loophole.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by U0K ( 6195040 )
        Yes, 100 Watt on an incandescent light bulb were not a lot. But I think it's very easy to forget that incandescent light bulbs only emit about 2% of the used energy as light in the visible spectrum.

        To get a better perspective people should try to compare that with an LED light that uses 100W. By that I mean an actual 100W load and not it just being rated the equivalent of a 100W incandescent light bulb. Then see how much light can be produced if a light source of this century is used instead of a space he

    • Re:What about larger televisions? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @08:14PM (#63360473)

      Better than a ban would be a tax. Those wanting high-powered TVs could still have them, and the tax receipts could be used to install more wind turbines.

    • Does this regulation make exceptions for larger televisions, or do they just assume that no one in the EU needs a TV above a certain screen size? 90 watts really isn't much, I think I had more wattage than that running through my subwoofers in the first car I had as a teenager.

      The EU knows best, and is also relying on the apparent fact that 8K tv's are overwhelmingly not wanted by their citizens. /s

      • Actually, you'll be hard pressed to find any 8k-content, and if you find it, it will probably be so compressed, that when you press your nose to the screen to see individual pixels, you'll mostly see compression artifacts. Nobody ever complained about a 30 square meter cinema screen being only 2k (except the people sitting in the first 3 rows, maybe, if they're pixel peepers). Buying a 85inch TV with 16 times the resolution is just stupid, double so if it's a crappy samsung with laggy UI and hardware that w

    • No exceptions. My employer is part of the 8K Association and thereâ(TM)s been a lot of chat there about this and attempts to pressure the EU. I canâ(TM)t help feeling that this demonstrated how little Americans and Asians havenâ(TM)t paid attention or understand the EU. I also canâ(TM)t help feeling that the manufacturers ignored this issue and didnâ(TM)t invest in a belief that they could play a game of chicken with the EU and get the rules changed if the EU was confronted with

      • True. The EU will wait a bit, determine whether it is an issue or a minor irritant, and if it becomes a real issue for to sales volume, the rules will be tightened.

        You can play chicken with the EU for a while, but the impact of climate change is no longer denied in the halls of the EU governments. They are very late, it is already becoming extremely expensive to fix things (thanks to oil and gas industry lobbying to delay the inevitable whole they were lining their pockets, helped by the MAGA-type tools) a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Askmum ( 1038780 )
      I'm sure you did not have 90 watts running through your subwoofers on a regular basis, or otherwise this is your only mode of communication (read: you're deaf). Having a 90 watt amp does not mean it always consumes 90 watt.

      Still, what's higher purpose in wasting energy?

  • "If TVs can't consume more than 90w then make them consume 90w" doesn't sound like a workaround to me

    • Why does this "workaround" remind me so strongly of Dieselgate? "We have to meet these emission standards but, if you want to be picky, only while in the test rig."

  • "Loophole" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:44PM (#63360221)

    so if you can manufacture an 8K TV that consumes less than 90W then you are in the clear.

    Sorry but that's not a "loophole." All regulations should be written to limit whatever you're trying to limit (power), not ban a technology just because it isn't there yet.

    The ability to crank up the settings may or may not be a real issue. A TV with a huge dynamic range and maximum brightness will have a large maximum power draw - which matters if somebody wants to watch a movie of the sun. That doesn't mean it is high in practice. The days of running monitors at 100% brightness all the time because they were too weak is over.

  • Clearly not an 8k TV ban (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Adrian Harvey ( 6578 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:45PM (#63360229)

    Terribly worded summary and title! They imply the intent of the ban is to block 8k TVs even though that’s an incredibly unlikely position for any government to take. That current designs of 8k TV have trouble being efficient enough to fit required energy consumption levels is an interesting story, but spoiled be clickbait headlines that are deliberately misstating the intent of the regulation to get attention.

    • Terribly worded summary and title!

      It's not the summary and title's fault in this case. Basically all news on this topic is ignorantly calling it an 8K TV ban. It's quite stupid but Slashdot is for once faithfully reproducing the stupid.

  • Limiting power in absolute in the default setting is just dumb.
    Shouldn't the limit be "it shouldn't consume more than X at Y lumen"? Or something like that?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      Limiting power in absolute in the default setting is just dumb.

      The dishwasher I have is designed the same way. The default wash mode is designed to meet some sort of EPA standards for saving water, clean dishes be damned. That mode is ultimately just a waste of time, detergent, water, and electricity. The only mode that actually produces clean dishes is the "Pots and Pans" setting, which presumably uses significantly more water.

      Government regulation of appliances has its place, but ultimately the laws of physics always prevail.

      • The dishwasher I have is designed the same way. The default wash mode is designed to meet some sort of EPA standards for saving water, clean dishes be damned.

        And the unintended consequences is that I have to run my dishwasher twice to get dishes rinsed clean.

        Someday a smart dishwasher will report that to the EPA and I'll get a fine in the mail for doing it.

        • There seems to be ways around most of the regulations.

          Needed a new vacuum cleaner. There's some sort of regulation about energy usage that would make cleaning large buildings take a week instead of a day. What is done is "commercial" style vacuums.

          So, since when I do break out the vacuum, I don't want to spend 3 hours with a mini-suck, which would suck, I break out my commercial vacuum I bought with the 50 foot power cord for covering large areas of big buildings, and which dims the lights and the torqu

          • Nothing in the regulations require something to be poor, just to use low power. The actual reality is that most companies developed far more efficient and far better vacuums as a result. The regulations exist for a reason, vacuums were getting fucking stupid. Why the heck would a non commercial / industrial vacuum cleaner need a 2400W motor (not joking, these products existed) only to work less effectively than a cordless battery powered job.

            If all you buy is the cheapest trash you can find, yeah a cheap co

            • Got really tired of my name-brand but compliant vacuum gliding right over the dirt I could see and just leaving it there. No, the filter wasn't clogged, it was just an underpowered POS. Don't remember if it was cheap or not, but it was "consumer grade" stuff. It sucked because it didn't.

              Proteam commercial grade backpack vacuum now is the go-to machine. about 600 - 1100 watts. It doesn't suck because it does. One pass is sufficient. And I'm real suspicious the overall KwH consumed for a cleaning

              • Got really tired of my name-brand but compliant vacuum gliding right over the dirt

                Oh, BTW, it wasn't cheap. A bit over $500.

                My friend bought a Ford, it wasn't cheap. I broke down 4 times in the first year he owned it and thanks to living in a country with lemon laws he got it refunded. Don't assume just because something costs money or has a fancy name makes it good.

                I had a nice Hoover vacuum cleaner. It sucked (or rather it didn't suck) compared to my current cordless Dyson. I still have a need for a corded one so I bought a nice Miele which was significantly cheaper yet orders of magnitude better than the Hoover it replaced. I

          • I break out my commercial vacuum I bought with the 50 foot power cord for covering large areas of big buildings, and which dims the lights and the torque rocks the vacuum backpack that it is composed of.

            Used (but in good condition) commercial grade power equipment costs the same as consumer grade and is always far superior. My used commercial grade lawn mower would outlast me, and when I'm done with it I can sell it for the same as I paid for it.

        • And the unintended consequences is that I have to run my dishwasher twice to get dishes rinsed clean.

          If you ever need to run your dishwasher twice, you're doing something wrong. Let me guess you use those cheap nasty all in one tablets, instead of filling powder into the pre-rise and cleaning trays? Even the cheapest nastiest dishwashers have no problem getting dirty dishes clean when used correctly. (seriously ditch those stupid tablet things).

          • I've never tried tablets, but between powder, liquid, or those semi-squishy pods, the pods win by a huge margin. Even after experimenting with various amounts of powder or liquid detergent. But the main problem is the dishwasher just doesn't use enough water to physically carry solids out to the drain. Thus I have to run it twice.

      • Then you either obviously have a pretty bad dish washer or pretty dirty (unusually dirty) dishes.

        • Then you either obviously have a pretty bad dish washer or pretty dirty (unusually dirty) dishes.

          I certainly could give the dishes a good scrub before putting them in, but that takes time and consumes additional water anyway. The entire point of having a kitchen appliance that does the work for you is to save time, so if I had to manually scrub each dish, utensil and glass, there'd be little point in having a dishwasher in the first place.

          In the grand scheme of things though, even when set to "pots and pans", it's a very minor portion of my ecological footprint. The majority of my household energy us

      • Same thing with vacuum cleaners here in the UK. I used to have a pre-regulation one (just a cheap Miele one) but I left it at my old flat because I didn't think it was worth taking with us. Now I have a new one eco-compliant one but it takes me twice as long to clean because it can't lift a piece of fluff out of carpet.

        They really need to think this situation through. I'm all for putting pressure on manufacturers to make these things efficient, but they also have to work. I actually think it would just be b

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      "X watts at Y lumens" is not a metric relevant to total power consumption, which is what this regulation wants to limit. "X watts total" is. "X watts at default settings" essentially isn't what they wanted to limit either, although I can understand why they thought they needed to allow some possible user settings to exceed the budget.

    • Limiting power in absolute in the default setting is just dumb.

      No it's not. The goal is to limit power, out of the box. Defaults make a world of difference (which is why the endless debate about whether things should be opt in vs opt out, which Microsoft got sued for internet explorer, etc). Default settings drive consumer behaviour without limiting flexibility.

      Shouldn't the limit be "it shouldn't consume more than X at Y lumen"? Or something like that?

      The point is to limit power draw. No one cares how bright the result in your living room is. Limiting to X lumens can allow anything from an ultra modern low power OLED to a fucking power hungry monster like pla

  • It is not 8K (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:56PM (#63360271)

    It is 7.68K. Ban worked around, beyotches!

  • I like how some of the comments here and elsewhere are "the EU is incompetent", but completely missed the fact that US laws, like right-to-repair etc have also been de-fanged by corporate interests.

    • Yeah it's a bit comparable to how software projects look when you've had your hands in them.

      • I love knowing that you got butthurt so bad, by me exposing how little you know about programming, you're stalking me around this site.

    • I like how some of the comments here and elsewhere are "the EU is incompetent", but completely missed the fact that US laws, like right-to-repair etc have also been de-fanged by corporate interests.

      I agree, but it also works the other way to create unfair barriers of entry to a market. I have been following the evolution of E-bike regulation in the EU, and the standard basically looks like it was produced by Bosch Corporation. It's a massive over reach (sets standards for front fork cyclic loading, size and shape of brake levers etc) when all they really needed to do is set a motor power and speed limit (actually a curve would be better, which they have, but is done in the most absurdly complex way) t

  • Who cares about 8K? (Score:3)

    by Mascot ( 120795 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:10PM (#63360297)

    I know the answer. The miniscule minority (I'd wager way less than 1%, like Pentium floating point inaccuracy less) that actually has a home theater with screen area to viewing distance ratio to get any perceivable benefit from 8K over 4K, and those duped by marketing into thinking they need 8K, but really it's all about those selling 8K. Heck, the vast majority are getting nothing but placebo even from 4K. Last I heard, unless you're over 100" at normal living room viewing distances, 4K serves little to no purpose. I can't vouch for that, but I can say that at 75" I notice no difference between 1080 and 4K. HDR, though, that's another matter. 1080 HDR over 4K SDR any day of the week.

    Also, I'm on board with all those who pointed out how misleading the title is.

    • Re:Who cares about 8K? (Score:4, Informative)

      by CmdrPorno ( 115048 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:32PM (#63360361)

      I certainly don't. I don't have any devices that will output 8K. All of my TVs are 1080p, and I have a 4K HD computer monitor, but the computer it's connected to won't support quite that high of a resolution. It works fine. It does seem like, as my televisions quit working, I will probably be forced into replacing them with 4K models, since those are so prevalent now, but I'm otherwise fine sticking with 1080.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mascot ( 120795 )

        The one argument I have for considering upgrading before your TV breaks, is HDR.

        It seems everyone talks about the brightness when it comes to HDR, but for me the real game changer was the wider color gamut. Everything just looks so much more.. correct, yet in a subtle way that wasn't all that noticeable to me until I did a comprison (on my own gear) and had my mind blown by how big the difference actually was.

        That doesn't mean you would have the same experience, of course, but worth keeping in mind if you h

    • When I first read the summary I was expecting to find out that the EU banned 8K because it's a stupidly excessive resolution. Even as a kid I couldn't have managed to sit that close to the screen. Cue that guy who claims his peripheral vision is 399% of normal...

      • Indeed. Only very few channels I can get transmit in 4k. Not sure about Netflix but I'm not about to increase my bandwidth for a few movies that I can watch just as well in 1080p on my new 65" TV, that I can watch without having to put on my glasses.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mascot ( 120795 )

          Netflix has tied HDR to its 4K tier, so unfortunately going 4K there is the only way to get HDR. Pretty much all new content is 4K these days, and mostly HDR in my experience.

          I have Netflix included in my cable package (well, technically the only way for me to upgrade to gigabit was to buy a package with a huge allotment of channel points as well, some of which I spent on Netflix), so I just pay a small fee to get the 4K upgrade. I wish I could tell them the only reason is for HDR, I would have been much ha

  • Who needs upscaled crap to 8k, or has someone grown bandwidth on trees for free lately so that one can have 8k content streamed? Or is anything on a TV worth watching at 8K resolution? Or is it so one can roll very small print at bottom of screen, to tell kids shall not eat those chips or drink this soda disclaimer?

    What is more worrying, is how much disregard for the environment and the spirit of the law Samsung is showing by gaming the rules with this pity deceptive default setting.

    • Some modern codecs are bring the bandwidth requirements down. Iâ(TM)ve seen some pretty good **live** 8K60 HEVC encoding in the 35-50Mbs range, and recently a VVC encoder managing to hit 8K60 at far lower rates, although most of the commercial codec manufactures in this field are still only touting 8K30. The VVC codecs are still immature so expect big improvements in the next couple of years. Brazilâ(TM)s new TV standards for 4K are currently trying to find VVC operating points at some exceptio

  • Why is this news? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bu11etmagnet ( 1071376 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:21PM (#63360331)

    Every TV is not only low-power, they are fully powered off out of the box.

  • Misleading Title (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:30PM (#63360357) Homepage
    The ban wasn't 8k TV's but energy consuming ones.

    • The ban wasn't 8k TV's but energy consuming ones.

      Looking into this a bit - why are they using Watts instead of Watt-hours?

      • Re:Misleading Title (Score:4, Insightful)

        by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) <angelo DOT schneider AT oomentor DOT de> on Friday March 10, 2023 @09:02PM (#63360549) Journal

        Because that is what is important.

        If you do not know the difference between W and Wh - google it.

        But for a layman: Watt is what is coming out of your faucet. Depending how much you open it, the more Watt is coming out. Depending how many people in your household or neighbourhood open their faucets, it might effect your Watt(er) drainage - and theirs.

        Wh or Watt-hours: that is the amount of water in your bath tub ...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by timeOday ( 582209 )
          Energy (not power) is what is important. If they're gonna regulate you from having a big tv, why not regulate you from having it turned on too much? If one person wants to watch a huge power-hogging screen for 2 hours per week, they're using way less energy than somebody who runs a smaller TV for 8 hours every day.

          I have this same issue with cars. We criticize people who drive gas hogs. But what about somebody who drives a fuel-efficient vehicle a ton of miles? They might be generating more CO2.

          • Actually, power is more important because the energy grid is designed for peak power usage not total energy usage.  Thus if you want to limit environmental impact, you want to decrease needing to spin up turbines due to peak usage.

          • Re:Misleading Title (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nagora ( 177841 ) on Saturday March 11, 2023 @05:13AM (#63361091)

            Energy (not power) is what is important. If they're gonna regulate you from having a big tv, why not regulate you from having it turned on too much?

            That's the dumbest thing I've read this week.

          • If one person wants to watch a huge power-hogging screen for 2 hours per week, they're using way less energy than somebody who runs a smaller TV for 8 hours every day.

            Now imagine if both ran a smaller more efficient TV.

            But what about somebody who drives a fuel-efficient vehicle a ton of miles? They might be generating more CO2.

            Getting somewhere provides an actual benefit, sometimes even in terms of economic output. Burning muthafarking oil because rolling coall whoooow hooo hear that engine roar muthafarker!!" does not.

            But if we want to put the human race on an even playing field then you wasteful dirty CO2 emitting westerner should sell both your TV and your car and maybe if you don't turn the AC on you maybe will be as amazingly efficient as someone from dirty dirty China!

        • Because that is what is important.

          If you do not know the difference between W and Wh - google it.

          But for a layman: Watt is what is coming out of your faucet.

          If you are saying Watt-hours is what is important, you are correct. If you are saying that only watts is relevant, well, sorry about that.

          Total power consumption is the important thing. That is Watt-hours.

          Watts equals the Voltage times the current in Amperes. Very true. But by itself, Watt has has only a part of what is needed to determine power consumption. A minute of operation at any particular Wattage is quite different than 24 hour operation of the same device.

          Watt-hours it the power consumption

          • The whole point is that When dealing with power, the EU wants to cut consumption of of it.

            They'll look a lot less like busybodies sticking their nose into your business if they are only trying to limit your tv power, rather than limiting the length of time you're allowed to watch that tv. I'ts just comes down to what they think they can get away with. Or what they can more easily police.

            • The whole point is that When dealing with power, the EU wants to cut consumption of of it.

              They'll look a lot less like busybodies sticking their nose into your business if they are only trying to limit your tv power, rather than limiting the length of time you're allowed to watch that tv. I'ts just comes down to what they think they can get away with. Or what they can more easily police.

              I suggest rolling blackouts. That's a method that is proven to work.

              But boy howdy, are they not creeping toward complete control of their citizen's lives?

      • Because it's effectively the same number in a regulatory environment.

        If they used watt-hours, they would use a hypothetical number of hours, and then it would be literally no different than just using watts, unless they made the TV shut off after your daily allotment of television watching hours. Is that what you want? Because that's what you're asking for.

        • Because it's effectively the same number in a regulatory environment.

          If they used watt-hours, they would use a hypothetical number of hours, and then it would be literally no different than just using watts, unless they made the TV shut off after your daily allotment of television watching hours. Is that what you want? Because that's what you're asking for.

          Yes - that is exactly what I want. I don't know your field, but do you like inaccuracies in it? Watts is not power consumption, it is part of the equation to determine power consumption. That is the alpha and omega of my point.

          Now the interesting thing is that so many people in here are triggered by that. It ain't me triggered homie - I'm the one who writes like one sentence, which was "Looking into this a bit - why are they using Watts instead of Watt-hours?' and am called confused, told I am spoutin

          • unless they made the TV shut off after your daily allotment of television watching hours. Is that what you want? Because that's what you're asking for.

            Yes - that is exactly what I want.

            I, for one, am not interested in having my TV turn off when the government thinks I've used it for long enough in a 24 hour period.

  • This is like the American limit on showerhead waterflow of 2.5 GPM [google.com]. Annoying, but there are workarounds.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      My water source is a well and I live in Illinois, which doesn't have any issues with draught and far from any place that does, so it's somewhat annoying that I have to pry out filters or drill larger holes in my shower head so that I can get more then 2.5 GPM. How about they just exponentially raise the price of water for those who buy it? Water usage will equalize itself naturally then.

  • OLED Banned Too? (Score:3)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:58PM (#63360435)

    I wonder how they measure this for OLEDs where the power draw depends entirely on the image. Even a modest-sized OLED screen can easily draw 300W+ during a bright scene.

    • Standard tests for power have been a thing for TVs for well over a decade now. It's why we have energy labels. And no those tests do not assume the user sits and stares onto a perfectly white canvas all day. They attempt to replicate real world content power draw at which point OLED is typically 30% more efficient than LCDs.

  • The EU have too many overpaid jobsworths on their hands. The public will vote with their wallets and pay for excess energy they use! And what about high power laptops like my 160watt 16"MacBook Pro M2 Max or gaming PCs? Can we expect a knock on the door from the Energy Police?

    • They try to force innovation. Next law will mandate a max 90W power supply. Forcing innovation works surprisingly well if you look at the past.

    • California already regulates gaming PCs - California Energy Commission (CEC) Tier 2 implementation. "Select configurations of the Alienware Aurora R10 and R12 were the only impacted systems across Dell and Alienware." https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]

  • Why does 8k use more power? (Score:3)

    by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Saturday March 11, 2023 @01:27AM (#63360911)

    I'm puzzled. I'd expect power would relate to total lumens produced, whether that's split into 2M, 12M, or 32M pixels. What is it about 8k screens that make them use twice the power? Does switching a pixel on or off consume that much juice?

    • Does switching a pixel on or off consume that much juice?

      Yes. Switching circuitry consumes about 30% of the total power for any given pixel. And processing power increases too.

  • I've been buying video cards since just before my first "real" one, a Voodoo 5 5500, and I've bought high end ones pretty regularly ever since. But even I am a bit taken back at the amount of juice the flagship cards are now consuming* (their size is off topic, though concerning), albeit their "frame per watt" has never been better.

    I've been asking myself, isn't nVidia (and AMD) worried about having a Greta Thunberg moment where she holds up a giant video card and declares that "Your shallow pass time of pl

  • Easy way to defeat the law: ship the tv with an unsigned open-source kennel module that regulates the brightness setting, then look the other way when altered versions that don't enforce the limit become trivially easy for any halfway-intelligent consumer to download to the TV's filesystem and replace the government-compliant one.

    Or, put in startup code that looks for the module, loads it if it can, and skips loading it if the module isn't found. Ship the tv with the module, and people can just delete or re

  • What the directive requires is basically a lower energy efficiency index [wikipedia.org], which is simply the ratio of the power consumption of a specific product to a given reference value. That reference consumption is established by the directive and is essentially a base power factor augmented by an allowance for extra features, multiplied by a constant and the screen area.

    That system was established quite a while a now, and the latest update, reducing the minimum EEI to 80%, reflects the assumption that devices shou

  • as most users never change the settings of their TV and usually leave on all that ugly motion smoothing, local dimming, noise reduction, and over-saturating. Ironically those things are particularly bad on samsung TVs. People might even get a better picture out of it now.

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser

Close