In the display industry, most technical decisions look simple on the surface.
LED backlight systems are a good example.
If you open enough all-in-one interactive displays from different brands, you will notice a pattern: most of them use 1W LED light bars. This is not an accident, and it is not necessarily a wrong choice.
At Qtenboard, we also started there.
This article is not about claiming that 1W LEDs are “bad,” or that 2W LEDs are “automatically better.” Instead, it explains why many factories choose to stay with 1W LED solutions, what practical limitations appear when displays grow larger and work longer, and why Qtenboard eventually moved away from that industry comfort zone.
From a manufacturing perspective, 1W LED light bars are attractive for very practical reasons.
First, they are easy to integrate.
Most standard LED drivers, power supplies, and PCB layouts are already optimized for this power range. For factories without deep backlight engineering teams, this significantly lowers development risk.
Second, thermal management is forgiving.
A 1W LED generates less heat per diode, which means:
Third, they work well in small to medium display sizes.
For screens below a certain size, especially in controlled indoor environments, 1W LEDs can meet brightness requirements without pushing the system.
For many factories, these reasons are enough.
And to be clear: there is nothing “wrong” with that choice.
However, what works well in one scenario does not always scale.
As interactive displays moved from 65" to 75", then to 86", 98", and beyond, backlight systems quietly became one of the most challenging parts of the product — even though they are rarely discussed in marketing materials.
At Qtenboard, we began to notice that 1W LED designs became increasingly constrained as screen size and usage expectations increased.
Not failing — but tight.
On paper, brightness targets can still be met with 1W LEDs by:
But in real products, this approach reduces margin.
Once a backlight system operates close to its limit:
For products expected to run 8–12 hours a day, this matters.
Increasing LED density is a common workaround, but it introduces secondary effects that datasheets do not show.
Higher density means:
Over time, Qtenboard observed that uniformity degradation often appeared first near high-density zones, not because the LEDs failed, but because the system became thermally unbalanced.
With 1W LEDs, the system may still pass initial tests:
But thermal margin — the buffer that protects performance over time — becomes thinner.
This does not show up in the first month.
It shows up after thousands of operating hours, when small thermal stresses accumulate.
For short-cycle consumer products, this may be acceptable.
For commercial and educational displays, it is not.
At this point, an obvious question arises:
If these limitations exist, why don’t more factories switch to higher-power LEDs?
The answer is simple and uncomfortable:
Because higher-power LEDs expose weak system design.
Moving beyond 1W LEDs is not a single-component upgrade.
It forces changes in:
For factories without in-house engineering validation, this introduces risk.
So most choose to stay within a range where problems are easier to hide.
At Qtenboard, the decision to move away from 1W LEDs did not start with a specification target.
It started with repeat observations during long-term testing.
As we expanded larger screen sizes and increased brightness expectations, we found ourselves constantly compensating:
Each fix worked — temporarily.
But the system became increasingly complex, with less margin for error.
This was the point where we stopped asking:
“How can we make 1W LEDs work?”
And started asking:
“Is this still the right foundation?”
Switching to 2W LED light bars was not a cosmetic decision.
The key insight was this:
Higher-power LEDs do not have to be driven harder — they can be driven smarter.
By using 2W LEDs at controlled operating currents, Qtenboard was able to:
This did not increase system stress.
It redistributed it more evenly.
With fewer LEDs generating heat in concentrated zones, thermal pathways became easier to manage.
This allowed:
Importantly, these improvements were measured, not assumed.
Lower LED density with higher output per point allowed optical layers — diffusers, reflectors, films — to work more efficiently.
Uniformity improved not because LEDs were “stronger,” but because the system became optically balanced.
Choosing 2W LEDs is not about claiming superiority.
It reflects a willingness to accept engineering responsibility.
It means:
This is also why not every product in the market should use 2W LEDs.
But for Qtenboard’s target applications — large-format, long-use, professional displays — staying with 1W LEDs would have meant staying inside limitations we could already see.
If you are evaluating displays or factories, a useful question is not:
“Is it 1W or 2W?”
But:
These questions reveal far more than a single wattage number.
The widespread use of 1W LED light bars is not a mistake — it is a reflection of how the industry balances risk and capability.
Qtenboard’s decision to move beyond that standard was not driven by marketing, but by engineering limits we encountered firsthand.
By adopting a 2W LED backlight system with controlled operation, we gained:
In display engineering, progress often comes not from adding more components, but from changing the foundation when optimization is no longer enough.
UKR
EN 
RU 
ARM 
LIT 
LAV 
BEL 
EST 
AZE 