Power Consumption
Vampire power consumption is dead low, which is good, of course. The monitor’s power needs are generally restricted, given its size. In comparison, the Alienware 34″ OLED is way more power-hungry.
Pages:
Vampire power consumption is dead low, which is good, of course. The monitor’s power needs are generally restricted, given its size. In comparison, the Alienware 34″ OLED is way more power-hungry.
From a technical standpoint (bendable) it’s an interesting offering.Thanks for the small review.
I wouldn’t buy it though. I’m not buying any PC-monitors at all anymore.
They are literally garbage when it comes to image quality, compared to what modern W-Oled or QD-Oled TVs offer.
Especially the matte AG-coating lowers the image quality by a large margin.
TVs superior multi-layered AR-coating increases image quality greatly.
99.x % of PC monitors have that crap AG-coating or an inferior AR-coating (not nearly as good as those found on modern TVs), so no luck here.
A Samsung S95C QD-Oled 55 inch, laps this monitor regarding image quality two times or so lol,
and has a ton of hardware- and software features, including frame interpolation (as Nvidias dlss 3).
Even runs at 4K-Uhd + 144 Hz ๐
And 55 inch the immersion is awesome.
And it doesn’t need to stand on a desktop table either, but behind it on a TV-pedestal.
I guess most PC users haven’t understood it yet that they’ are NOT constrained by the size of their table, but can put things behind it ๐
Na, monitors have a horrible price-performance ratio. This one for 1000 bucks, maybe, but not for 1700.
Why are PC users buy overpriced 2000 bucks graphics cards, when their image quality still stays low, du to inferior PC-monitors?
Makes little sense to me.
Cheers.