Playing a fireplace video produces real heat.
I guess if you disable the computer’s fan, yes.
Greetings fellow time-traveler. What model of entropy-reversing computer fan do you use?
If you’re using an older LCD screen, turning off the lamp uses more electricity than leaving it on
Did you know that characters in video games have an electrical current to keep them alive just like real people?
So an oil lamp in a video game is actually an electric lamp?
They also emit real photons. 🤯
Yep, virtual lights work the same as real lights
Virtual lights are real lights…
If they’re not looked at, they don’t consume as much electricity. So there’s that difference.
If you have your back to them, they don’t emit light either!
Edit: Well, reflections, for you with the FANCY GPUs…
Exactly what I thought while I was commenting that. The reflections are what made me rewrite it 😅
That depends on how the game does reflections. In some games they have a mirrored room with an identical but different light for the reflection.
Nah, fuck that. Buys e-ink monitor
They would still emit real photons, just reflected ones.
Strictly speaking, reflected light isn’t ‘emitted’. A mirror isn’t an emitter of light either.
Photons get absorbed and then re-emitted. I’d argue that counts as emission as it’s one part of the reflection process.
Shades in video games use even more electricity
Not on OLED screens + prebaked lightning
That’s too specific conditions, but okay :)
not that specific. most modern displays are oled, and most efficient games use prebaked lighting. the average gamer probably plays on an oled display, and has a game with prebaked lighting.
You made a blanket statement. There are exceptions.
Which is really unexpected if you’re looking at an oil lamp.
Change electricity to energy and we’re good again
deleted by creator
somebody said this at work yesterday, and now it’s here
And by convention, all vehicles in video games are electric.
technically they all make fake combustion noises, which is worse.
Why? I like combustion noises
I upvoted both of these because chaos
Huh. Is eternity (the app I’m using) finally broken? Did not even realize I double posted.
Why? I like combustion noises
i was making a sad attempt at a joke about electric cars with fake car noises
Do they use more than dark places in video games? Like if you are in dark room in the game, and you turn on a lamp in the game, are you using more electricity?
My guess is no but I am not a programmer or electrician nor a physicist.
if you have an oled display, then if a video game is brighter it costs more energy because the LEDs turn on more.
if have an lcd display, there’s a backlight that always has the same brightness and crystals blocking the light, which makes the image. meaning a brighter scene doesn’t take more power, since the backlight doesn’t use more energy.
On an LCD display, the backlight is always on but the crystals need power to align and let the backlight through.
A full white screen would in theory use more electricity than a full black screen. How much more, I don’t actually know but I would like to know more info in it.
If the light is not dynamic at all, no. If it has stuff like dynamic shadows it will require more processing power to render frames than if the light was off, which probably makes the CPU/GPU draw slightly more power
I’d guess if you have an OLED panel it would because black pixels are ‘off’ it would consume somewhat of more electricity but I do not know
Wait, video games use electricity?
More interestingly, lamps in video games use the same amount of real electricity if they are on or off.
Not necessarily, on OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs) a light that’s turned off is using less power because the pixels the lamp is displayed on (and the ones around it too) are dimmer.
YELLS IN GPU VERTEX PIPELINE
that consumes electricity. ever think about the poor gpu? about how your words hurt its feelings?
jokes aside the power to process a few hundred vertices every frame is insignificant
And traditional LCDs with a backlight use more power for darkness. The LCD is transparent by default and turns opaque/black when a voltage is applied.
Actually, the pixels go completely black and do not consume any electricity at all in that state.
You might be thinking of early OLEDs, which had to stay on at all times to prevent blur/smearing. But panel manufacturers solved that problem a few years ago. Don’t remember exactly when the change happened, but I remember first seeing true black OLEDs sometime around 2017/2018.
When a lamp turns off it doesn’t become a black hole. Previous commenter was correct, though I appreciate your info about OLED
The light doesn’t become true black, it’s dark but not a complete nothingness. So yes, it’ll still consume power.
OLED displays (which are definitely a thing for desktop computers and TVs)
Probably not for most people, due to cost. More realistic for portable devices where battery saving is a thing, as it doesn’t seem like there’s much mainstream push for OLED (or similar equivalent) monitors that aren’t top-end (on newegg, I could only find 240Hz options).
That and often search results are for other panel technologies (IPS/TN/VA). Lower spec stuff seems to exist but you really gotta scrape the bottom of the barrel (portable monitors) to find some niche product.
Monitors no, TVs very much so.
TVs very much so
Very much so… what? A quick glance, they’re expensive AF (riddled with “smart” features and now AI, gigantic on top of 4K etc) too.
Sure I guess there’s actually a chance a few impulsively bought one at a big-box store (or “on sale” for the full price of a non-OLED TV), but it’s more likely they bought “LED” which is marketing speak for local dimming (not even close to OLED turning pixels off).
I’m not sure sub-£550 ($700) with reasonable sizes (42"), really counts at expensive AF anymore (not cheap but not expensive AF). But each to their own.
Alright sure, maybe. But LCD screens are ubiquitous, and most people probably aren’t looking to buy more displays. In a similar vein, early 4K adopters probably don’t have much reason… if they can just be happy with what they already have.
It is good enough to be the last thing to upgrade, especially looking at the chunk of cost it’d be when lumped in with PC/console cost. (also, selling is probably not for everyone even if less-modern HDTVs had any resale value, and at ~42" you might even not get any quick takers even if free)
A quick look at the Steam survey, ~56% of users are still using 1080p and ~20% are using 1440p. If OLED is almost exclusive to 4K and/or 240Hz many will likely continue to ignore it.
Also if you don’t have the hardware+content, it also doesn’t really make sense. That’s additional cost, and you may even need to look specifically for content created that works well with OLED (if not created with it in mind). Higher-speeed broadband availability/cost and streaming enshittification(+encoding quality) may be factors here too.
And burn-in seems to still be a thing, at least with some types/models.
So I see this as a long way off for mass adoption, similar to VR. And more to my point that it’s more of an exception than a norm.
EDIT: Also just saw QDEL, seems a year away still but may fix burn-in and cost (especially if it is pushed to lower end, print manufacturing may allow it). Though who knows, I’m also seeing tandem OLED (except it seems to make cost worse).
A few things:
- I disagree that LCD is good enough, especially for living room gaming. It is the best and most significant upgrade I’ve ever done, by a long way.
- In terms of Steam Survey, again no arguments from me, oled monitors are rare, I was arguing that TVs are not.
- There isn’t such thing as content that works well with OLED, everything looks significantly better, especially with HDR, which almost everything supports and has done for a significant period of time.
- As someone that has been using an OLED TV for 5+ years, burn-in really isn’t an issue, there’s not a trace of burn-in on either of my TVs, or any of my portable devices with OLEDs. The only time I’ve ever experienced burn-in on an OLED was a Nexus 5, which is so long ago, that it’s almost irrelevant. In the case of the Nexus 5, the only reason it ended up with burn-in is because I enabled the developer option to keep the screen on at all times, resulting in the status bar burning into the screen. All modern OLED displays take burn-in into account and run screen cleaning occasionally, which isn’t noticeable as the screen just appears a black. So unless someone is running a news channel with a static logo 24/7 on the screen, they’re not going to have issues with burn-in. It’s worth noting I have an OLED TV on my desk too (that one was indeed on sale, for ~400 IIRC), and that has static content such as an Apple logo (work laptop 😞), on it for hours each day, with no burn-in.
Highly depends on the rendering engine and if you’re looking at it, as it could unrender if you look away, meaning less energy used.
Did you know that if we took all the rhinos left on the planet, put them in a rocket ship and launched it towards the sun, the would travel 91.511 million mi, and die along the way?
Akshually we currently have no rocket with enough power to launch that much mass towards the Sun. People always assume because the Sun has a lot of gravity, stuff moves toward it automatically. But when launching from Earth that’s not the case. Earth is in orbit around the Sun, in order to get to the Sun you need to lose all that energy. Since rhino’s are heavy af you’d need a mighty rocket indeed.
We could with some effort maybe launch one small rhino, say 600-700kg towards the Sun. And it requires some fancy ass orbital mechanics. So it would travel way more than 91.511 million miles before ending up in the Sun. This rhino would probably not survive the launch, which is just as well given its destination and travel time.
Subscribe to more space facts
“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
You need multitudes more energy to get to a sun orbit than you need to leave the solar system.
While getting a rocket or probe to hit the sun smack in the middle sounds hard to do, you can get obliterated by it with much less delta-v.
You need to get to the Earth’s escape velocity and just cleverly align the angle of escape so that you get an eccentric enough heliocentric orbit that you’d end up some 6 million kms close to the sun. Anything closer than that is literally overkill.
Also we don’t launch towards the sun, we deorbit by burning in the opposite direction of where the earth is moving towards.
Mind blow
