Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1 vs Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1

3.125 mm against 3.125 mm · specifications from both manufacturers' datasheets

This page puts the two sheets side by side, then builds the same wall from each tile, so the comparison is in panels, kilograms, circuits and data runs.

Specifications

	Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1	Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1
Manufacturer	Blizzard IRiS	Nanolumens
Pixel pitch	3.125 mm	3.125 mm
Cabinet	1200 × 300 mm	250 × 250 mm
Brightness	1,000 nits	6,000 nits
Refresh rate	3,840 Hz	not published
Viewing angle	not published	140° / 140°
Pixels per cabinet	384 × 96	80 × 80
Pixels per m²	102,400	102,400
Weight	10 kg (28 kg/m²)	2.33 kg (37 kg/m²)
Max power	180 W (500 W/m²)	41.3 W (661 W/m²)
Typical power	60 W*	12.4 W
Max hang	not published	not published

* Average draw estimated as max ÷ 3; this manufacturer publishes no average figure.

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

	Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1	Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1
Wall built	6 × 15, 7.20 × 4.50 m	32 × 18, 8.00 × 4.50 m
Panels needed	90 + 5 spare	576 + 29 spare
Resolution	2,304 × 1,440 px	2,560 × 1,440 px
Weight incl. bumpers	975 kg	1,742 kg
Load per point	~390 kg across 3	~697 kg across 3
Power, full white	16.2 kW	23.8 kW
Circuits (16 A/230 V)	6	11
Data runs	12 at ≤14/port	8 at ≤81/port
Truck, linear	6.7 m	21.3 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: 7.20 × 4.50 m and 8.00 × 4.50 m respectively.

What the numbers say

Both resolve to about the same density (102,400 and 102,400 pixels per square metre), so pick on weight, power or what your shop already owns rather than on image detail.
Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1 is the lighter rig: 28 kg/m² against 37 kg/m². Across this wall that is 767 kg of difference, 975 kg versus 1,742 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.
Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1 draws more: 661 W/m² against 500 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 16.2 kW versus 23.8 kW, and 6 versus 11 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.
Data is lighter on Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1: 8 runs against 12, at 14 and 81 panels per port respectively (60 Hz, 8-bit, ports loaded to 80%). Fewer runs means fewer home runs to pull and fewer processor ports to find.
Different cabinet formats: 1200 × 300 mm against 250 × 250 mm, so 90 tiles versus 576 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: 6.7 m for Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1 against 21.3 m for the other, including spares, cases and cabling.

For other panels, 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

Blizzard IRiS InSignia Panorama 3.1 vs Nanolumens Performance 250 3.1

Specifications

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

What the numbers say

Full specifications

Related comparisons