Which is lighter, INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 or ROE Visual RB1.9F?

INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 is the lighter rig: 28 kg/m² against 34 kg/m². Across this wall that is 120 kg of difference — 1,318 kg versus 1,438 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.

Which draws more power?

ROE Visual RB1.9F draws more: 960 W/m² against 520 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 20.8 kW versus 34.6 kW, and 8 versus 16 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.

Which resolves finer?

Both resolve to about the same density — 262,144 and 262,144 pixels per square metre — so pick on weight, power or what your shop already owns rather than on image detail.

RigPlan

Wall in. Truck list out.

INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 vs ROE Visual RB1.9F

1.95 mm against 1.95 mm · specifications from both manufacturers' datasheets

Side-by-side specifications, then the same wall built from each tile — so the comparison is in panels, kilograms, circuits and data runs rather than in marketing copy.

Specifications

	INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2	ROE Visual RB1.9F
Manufacturer	INFiLED	ROE Visual
Pixel pitch	1.95 mm	1.95 mm
Cabinet	500 × 1000 mm	500 × 500 mm
Pixels per cabinet	256 × 512	256 × 256
Pixels per m²	262,144	262,144
Weight	13.98 kg (28 kg/m²)	8.6 kg (34 kg/m²)
Max power	260 W (520 W/m²)	240 W (960 W/m²)
Typical power	87 W	120 W
Max hang	not published	20 panels

The same wall, built from eachclosest 16:9 / 16:10 near 8 m wide, flown, EU power, 60 Hz 8-bit

	INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2	ROE Visual RB1.9F
Wall built	16 × 5 — 8.00 × 5.00 m	16 × 9 — 8.00 × 4.50 m
Panels needed	80 + 4 spare	144 + 8 spare
Resolution	4,096 × 2,560 px	4,096 × 2,304 px
Weight incl. bumpers	1,318 kg	1,438 kg
Load per point	~527 kg across 3	~575 kg across 3
Power, full white	20.8 kW	34.6 kW
Circuits (16 A/230 V)	8	16
Data runs	32 at ≤3/port	32 at ≤7/port
Truck, linear	5 m	6.5 m

Whole cabinets rarely hit an identical size, so each wall is the closest build to a real video format (16:9 or 16:10) near 8 m wide for that tile — 8.00 × 5.00 m and 8.00 × 4.50 m respectively.

What the numbers say

Both resolve to about the same density — 262,144 and 262,144 pixels per square metre — so pick on weight, power or what your shop already owns rather than on image detail.
INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 is the lighter rig: 28 kg/m² against 34 kg/m². Across this wall that is 120 kg of difference — 1,318 kg versus 1,438 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.
ROE Visual RB1.9F draws more: 960 W/m² against 520 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 20.8 kW versus 34.6 kW, and 8 versus 16 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.
Both come out at 32 data runs for this wall, though they carry 3 and 7 panels per port respectively.
Different cabinet formats: 500 × 1000 mm against 500 × 500 mm, so 80 tiles versus 144 for the same wall. Fewer, larger cabinets build faster; smaller ones give finer control over wall dimensions and are easier to handle alone.
Estimated truck space: 5 m for INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 against 6.5 m for the other, including spares, cases and cabling.

Comparing something else — or your own OEM tile? The comparison tool takes any panels, up to four at once, at your wall size. Add your own spec once in the calculator and it appears there alongside the catalogue.

Open these two in the tool

INFiLED IRGX1.9mk2 vs ROE Visual RB1.9F

Specifications

The same wall, built from eachclosest 16:9 / 16:10 near 8 m wide, flown, EU power, 60 Hz 8-bit

What the numbers say

Full specifications

Related comparisons