SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Friday September 23 2016, @04:27PM
from the teaching-to-the-test-yields-a-fail dept.
from the teaching-to-the-test-yields-a-fail dept.
El Reg reports
The NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] reckons TV makers are configuring sets to perform well on government tests, while in the living room they become energy hogs.
Its specific claims are:
- The TVs perform well on the US Department of Energy-mandated energy use test--but that's based on a clip that doesn't match real-world video content. ([To El Reg,] that seems like a slip-up by the DoE);
- TVs from Samsung, LG, and Vizio are designed to disable energy-saving features if the user changes their screen settings, but there's little or no warning about this. This, the NRDC says, can as much as double the power consumption; and
- UHD TVs turn into energy hogs when they're playing high dynamic range (HDR) content, but HDR isn't included in the DoE's test (again, surely that means the DoE needs to update its tests?).
The NRDC says European testing seemed to match another observation it made: that during the DOE test loop, some TVs seemed to exhibit "inexplicable and sustained drops in energy use". It suggests that software is specifically detecting the test loop and adjusting the TV's performance to suit.
One assumes that "a clip" refers to the standard video loop used in the tests.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
TV Manufacturers Get their Own Dieselgate Over Power Consumption Tests
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 33 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @05:48PM
Its the same old story. If you are going to measure something, make sure you are measuring what matters because everybody will optimize for what you measure. That's one reason these sorts of standards need to be constantly revisited and updated, its the never-ending war between what matters and what counts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @06:23PM
When we leave for more than a day or two, TVs and other "always on" devices have their power strips / surge protectors unplugged. Wouldn't want the fairies dancing while we are gone, and it's also an extra piece of mind if there happens to be a lightning storm while we are away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SunTzuWarmaster on Friday September 23 2016, @07:21PM
I highly recommend this product - https://www.wiredathome.com/belkin-f7c007-conserve-smart-av-energy-saving-surge-suppressor/?ref=lexity&_vs=google&_vm=productsearch&gclid=Cj0KEQjwpZO_BRDym6K_nMye7cEBEiQAVA7RaNKLH6uPCnQF00pH8-rU_qIQOsSMvLsjmzjmKvY8hmAaAgUQ8P8HAQ [wiredathome.com]
It cuts the power (physically) to all associated devices keyed off of a prime device. As an example, the TV stays "always on", but when the TV is in "off" (still listening for IR "turn on") setting, the power strip physically turns off the soundbar, PS3, wii, etc. I have the same things for my computer: when the computer is sleeping, the power is off to the speakers, monitors, printer, etc.
The "low power" settings are good, but "no power physically provided" is still more efficient. We save where we can. Our home energy consumption averages 17.5 kWh/day and could live "off grid" if we desired.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 23 2016, @07:59PM
Nice, but...
How many of these do you need, and how much do they draw?
My monitor goes to blackscreen-power-saving mode fairly quickly, as soon as it is told to do so by the computer.
But it comes alive very quickly if I touch a key.
It takes a lot longer to come up from a unplugged event.
/Me: reaches around back, yanks cord, waits 5sec, plugs in, counts 13 seconds while LCD Dell monitor comes ready /
The saving from Total-Off vs black-screen-power-save will probably be consumed by your box, and the wait time for monitor re-power will induce me (and most people) to set time-to-powersave to a much longer duration.
I remain a skeptic. (hey, its what I do).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @08:56PM
Intended to reply anon, but forgot to hit the button. Run the numbers yourself. I too was sceptical. It turned out that it had a 6 month payback on its cost when I ran them (holy crap does "power saving" mode use a lot of power). The device I linked is the one that I have (several). I have a 1 second boot up time (from sleep mode) on the computer monitors, and. 3ish second boot up time on the PS3 (the slowest). YMMV, obviously.
When running the numbers, I used 11c/kWh, 90% idle.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 23 2016, @10:12PM
> holy crap does "power saving" mode use a lot of power
Glad I finally got rid of the cable box, which didn't even pretend to lower power when "off" (it stopped showing video, but kept the decoder ready).
I read somewhere that a cable executive declared that saving power wasn't a feature the American public requested, so they didn't bother to request from the supplier the low-power modes that the chipsets do support.
Unplugging that cable box meant a >3 minutes boot time, which sadly means an intolerable amount of whining from the SO...
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 24 2016, @06:34PM
What is with SOs? Mine is perfectly willing to throw money away on a Netflix subscription, and rent from RedBox and buy from Amazon. And she still whines that I won't also pay for cable TV for her. She thinks the police are going to drag me off to prison someday for piracy.
Her concern for the environment is highly selective. She'll sit in her parked car for 15+ minutes at a time, running the engine so she can enjoy A/C, instead of getting indoors somewhere. Even when it's cooler, she still wants the A/C so her allergies aren't aggravated by all the pollen floating around the great outdoors. Her fuel economy numbers are of course horrible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:53PM
> What is with SOs?
Have you tried asking her, and then listening, rather than informing her that she's being dumb? Maybe, just maybe there is something you are missing.
Nah. Women are stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @11:45PM
My monitor goes to blackscreen-power-saving mode fairly quickly, as soon as it is told to do so by the computer.
But it comes alive very quickly if I touch a key.
Have you measured how much power it is drawing in that "power-saving" mode?
My 30" dell shuts off the fluorescent backlight but even 30 minutes later the back of the monitor is just as warm to the touch as it was before it blanked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @06:46PM
If you're relying on government to update anything you might as well depend on the fact that government is so slow to update anything that by the time they update their standards the product in question would be obsolete anyways.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 23 2016, @07:41PM
Or, you know, make the standard match real-world usage enough that gaming the system doesn't matter?
In the case of televisions, an annual capture of "typical" usage could be used to set the standard - capture video in 2016 to use for the 2020 testing standards, capture in 2017 for 2021, etc. The 2021 test could include video clips captured from 2007 to 2017, because, really, how hard is it to play back a selection of 10 recorded video files?
One might also include language in the standard to the effect of: "Total energy usage when playing random, previously undisclosed clips, shall not increase more than 20% from the standard clips." Or, just comer right out with: "Manufacturers shall not make specific optimizations to their systems that improve performance for the standard test clips when compared to random, previously undisclosed clips - violations shall result in a penalty proportionate to the cost of extra energy consumed by such optimizations."
When Hyundai got caught overselling their "40mpg" cars, they paid back the differential cost of fuel to the car owners.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 23 2016, @08:14PM
In the case of televisions, an annual capture of "typical" usage could be used to set the standard - capture video in 2016 to use for the 2020 testing standards, capture in 2017 for 2021, etc.
So, a buiding somewhere where 30,000 TV models are running 24/7 for a year just to determine the standards, and another building at the manufacturer or the testing agencies where they test new models for HOW long before they can ship any of them?
There isn't a need for any Standard consumption limits.
Given two TVs of similar size and capabilities the consumption stickers should carry all the weight that need be applied to this issue. The consumer can make this choice as long as the sticker can be trusted.
The problem is not one of inadequate standards.
The problem here is that the stickers and consumption can be gamed because the actual (and only) video content is pre-published in advance.
You don't have to run anything for a year. All you have to do is use variable content from variable inputs over a few hours without the device knowing exactly when readings are being taken.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 23 2016, @09:18PM
I said clips, I'm thinking like 30 seconds of video (per year captured) should be adequate.
Yes, the whole problem is in the stickers - I think energy consumption standards make about as much sense as CAFE for cars (little to none).
If I compare two TVs, and they're claiming to draw 30W and 45W, but respectively pull 150W and 50W in my normal use case, because vendor A has gamed the standard, then that's a problem that I want fixed.
The point of capturing new test clips on a regular basis is to reduce the temptation to game the system - recognizing a test clip becomes harder when it changes every year - harder still if you don't have access to all of the test clips.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @11:51PM
One might also include language in the standard to the effect of: "Total energy usage when playing random, previously undisclosed clips, shall not increase more than 20% from the standard clips."
Is it nice where you live? Because you obviously live in fantasyland.
A fantasyland where manufacturers never push back on regulation, they just roll over and take anything imposed on them no matter how random.
Seriously, no company would accept a standard that open-ended it. If they can't measure it, there is simply no way in hell they would commit to it. Best case it becomes a label that they all just decide isn't worth the effort and now the government has no impact at all. You do know that this energy-star label is 100% voluntary right?