: Power Consumption for LCD vs. Plasma: Has it Changed Much Recently?
2008-11-06, 08:46 PM
I haven't been able to find anything new on this subject. In short, I remember reading in the past that power consumption averaged out between them because plasma used less power during scenes with lots of black. Once again, I've heard that plasmas consume way more power and I'm wondering if it's true. Have LCD's become significantly more efficient than plasmas these days or is it just the same recycled myth?
Nothing has really changed. Both technologies have actually gotten a bit more efficient on a per square inch basis
LED for LCD was supposed to be more energy efficient but this thread (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=92688) puts that idea in dispute.
Here's a previous thread on the topic:
Plasmas do typically have a bit higher power consumption for equally sized TVs, however, that should not really be the reason for choosing one over the other. Also realize that an optimized TV will use less power than one that is operating in the default torch mode. This makes it almost impossible to compare.
2008-11-07, 05:21 PM
I like that list at cnet. That sure answers a lot of questions.
2008-11-07, 05:22 PM
CNET has just updated their study on power consumption of most types of TVs. Plasma still has problems in this department.
2008-11-25, 01:11 PM
Compared to the Samsung LED driven DLP, thay are all power hogs. :mad:
Plasma being the worst. And that CNET list is a real eye opener.
2008-11-25, 01:28 PM
thay are all power hogs. Plasma being the worst.
Maybe it's a flaw in the certification process, but if plasma is so bad, why does mine have an "EnergyStar" rating sticker on it...?
2008-11-25, 02:07 PM
It gets that based when the device is off (actually standby). I believe if it is less than 3 watts, it gets the certification.
2008-12-16, 03:04 AM
Going by the cnet list, the plasmas use more power in general, but there are a few good ones that are efficient. It's not as bad as the every day fools want everyone to believe though. They make it sound like it's the end of the world. If a few tens of dollars a year (or less) is really that bad for you, you're living beyond your means and you shouldn't own an HDTV. :rolleyes:
2008-12-16, 11:39 AM
Hydroaxe, I could ask if you think that HDTVs are only for the privileged wealthy but I won't. What I will point out instead is that electrical power today is in short supply, expensive to produce and often generates pollution in its production. We should all be doing our part to reduce our energy footprint for both financial and environmental reasons. Every little bit helps. Plasma TVs definitely take more power in most instances. An informed consumer has a choice to make whether they are rich or poor.
2008-12-16, 01:54 PM
When shopping for a new TV I considered the Samsung plasmas for their superior black levels and contrast ratios but choked when I saw that they consumed more than twice the energy of their equivalent LCD models.
That may be true in the default picture mode or maximum power consumption (specs), however, when properly calibrated the plasma will come much closer to the power used by the LCD. Also, LCD power consumption is constant at a particular picture setting, while a plasma will vary quite a bit with picture content - for example black takes a lot less power than white.
While it is true that, on average, the plasma will probably consume a bit more power than the equivalent LCD, the difference when properly calibrated is not huge.
2008-12-16, 02:07 PM
The power on the back is the MAXIMUM, not the average. My 42" Panasonic plasma says 387W but the measured is 120 - 320W depending on the scene and the brightness level. I assume that an LCD is less variable since the backlight is constant.
2008-12-16, 03:24 PM
The cnet comparison is somewhat flawed since the "power on" measurement was done in "torch mode". If this is how you watch at home then this would be of use. Lowering the brightness has a greater affect on plasma power consumption since it is phophor based vs an LCD's backlight.
You will also notice that the current model Panasonic plasmas are about equal to the best LCD models for power consumption. The Panasonic 58PX800U uses the lowest watts/sq.in. of any LCD or Plasma (except for a 42" Philips LCD). The 58PX800U per sqin. wattage usage is about equal to the average RPTV in this table so the RPTV power advantage is also slipping away.
Plasma is increasing phosphor efficiency at a much higher rate than LCD can improve the backlit (inherent in each technology). Just looks at how far plasma power usage has come down over the years. Panasonic has already announced that their 2009 models will use 1/2 the power of their existing models due to improvements in the phosphor. I suspect by this time next year the 58" Panasonic Plasma will use the least amount of watts/sqin of any TV (LCD or RPTV). Pioneer will also be using Panasonic Plasma panels in their TVs next year so they should have similar results. But unfortunately the Panasonic Plasma's power supply rating will still be higher than an equivalent size LCD or RPTV so that the average consumer will be fooled into believing the LCD uses less electricity when in fact the opposite will be true.
2008-12-16, 04:49 PM
Pioneer is NOT buying their panels from Panasonic. Panasonic will be manufacturing panels for Pioneer to Pioneer specs. Panasonic will not have access to those panels. It's part of the agreement.
2008-12-16, 05:01 PM
Hoodlum, what you say is true but I'd bet that more than 50% of the owners of HDTVs actually do watch their sets in torch mode. Only those of us who understand the technicalities of TV (colour temps etc.) ever bother to adjust their sets or better yet, have them professionally calibrated. That, I believe, is the reason why CNET uses torch mode for their tests.
Pioneer is NOT buying their panels from Panasonic. Panasonic will be manufacturing panels for Pioneer to Pioneer specs. Panasonic will not have access to those panels. It's part of the agreement.There is not really a lot of distinction here as all panel manufacturers build panels for TV manufactures to customer specs. The fact that Panasonic will be supplying those panels is relevant and the fact that Pioneer is not building their own panels in future is also relevant.
This thread is about power consumption, not panel manufacturers, so let's stick to that topic though
2008-12-17, 12:22 AM
OK, so I did some comparisons:
My TV isn't listed in the Cnet list, so I averaged out the 3 similar Panasonic 42" plasma models, and the average annual cost works out to $77.05.
The average 42" LCD works out to $59.11.
That's an annual savings of $17.94.
You're telling me I should consider an inferior product (given my usages & viewing preferences) for $17.94...? A single Blu-Ray disc isn't even that cheap!
Footnote: though it's the largest model on the list at 65", an LCD takes the top spot for most expensive at $227.82.
I can't believe this is even taken into consideration when shopping for a new model...it's not exactly hybrid vs. Hummer...
2008-12-17, 03:05 AM
cooper83, you see it exactly the way I do. 17 dollars in savings? Oooooooo... :rolleyes: If I believed the list word for word, I still wouldn't choose an inferior LCD to save a few dollars every year either. I think it's the average salesmen and the foolish who would have people believe it's "hybrid vs. hummer". The salesman can use it to try and get people to decide quicker.
2008-12-17, 10:54 AM
Consumer Reports testing found that, size for size, plasma screens often used two to two and a half times the electricity that an LCD did.
Saving electricity, or any resource for that matter, is not just about dollar savings. Saving resources is an important goal in itself, as what you use or save is multiplied millions of times by other people doing the same.