Nanolumens Performance 250 8.3 vs ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII

8.333 mm against 8.33 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

	Nanolumens Performance 250 8.3	ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII
Manufacturer	Nanolumens	ROE Visual
Pixel pitch	8.333 mm	8.33 mm
Cabinet	250 × 250 mm	600 × 1200 mm
Brightness	5,500 nits	6,000 nits
Refresh rate	not published	3,840 Hz
Viewing angle	140° / 140°	140° / 110°
Pixels per cabinet	30 × 30	72 × 144
Pixels per m²	14,400	14,400
Weight	2.33 kg (37 kg/m²)	11 kg (15 kg/m²)
Max power	41.3 W (661 W/m²)	530 W (736 W/m²)
Typical power	12.4 W	260 W
Max hang	not published	12 panels

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

	Nanolumens Performance 250 8.3	ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII
Wall built	32 × 18, 8.00 × 4.50 m	13 × 4, 7.80 × 4.80 m
Panels needed	576 + 29 spare	52 + 3 spare
Resolution	960 × 540 px	936 × 576 px
Weight incl. bumpers	1,742 kg	612 kg
Load per point	~697 kg across 3	~245 kg across 3
Power, full white	23.8 kW	27.6 kW
Circuits (16 A/230 V)	11	12
Data runs	1 at ≤577/port	2 at ≤50/port
Truck, linear	21.3 m	3.1 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 × 4.50 m and 7.80 × 4.80 m respectively.

What the numbers say

Both resolve to about the same density (14,400 and 14,400 pixels per square metre), so pick on weight, power or what your shop already owns rather than on image detail.
ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII is the lighter rig: 15 kg/m² against 37 kg/m². Across this wall that is 1,130 kg of difference, 612 kg versus 1,742 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.
ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII draws more: 736 W/m² against 661 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 23.8 kW versus 27.6 kW, and 11 versus 12 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.
Data is lighter on Nanolumens Performance 250 8.3: 1 runs against 2, at 577 and 50 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: 250 × 250 mm against 600 × 1200 mm, so 576 tiles versus 52 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: 3.1 m for ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII 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

Nanolumens Performance 250 8.3 vs ROE Visual Carbon CB8 MkII

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