Power Consumption for LCD vs. Plasma: Has it Changed Much Recently?

[nobsplease]

I talked to someone from Samsung who is not in the technical dept. I asked him if, given that both the Plasmas and LCDs have Energy Star 3.0 ratings, LCD and Plasma standards are the same. He didn't know, dammit.
I thought this was kinda interesting. I mean, if the standard for achieving a rating is uniform across platforms then Plasmatic power munching is the same on average as LCD.
Anybody know more about Energy Star? The website is full of BS for laymen so if you got the info, give.

[cfraser]

Energy Star is so flawed in the way it allows measurements to be made it's practically meaningless. For everything. It's way too political, and way not enough practical.

For TVs they allow measurements to be made in ways that almost noone would ever use. And the manufacturers report the results themselves. The manufacturers lobby for and set the Energy Star test formats.

Basically it's as meaningful as the wattage ratings of certain multichannel amp brands...

And to think we have to pay extra to get that logo on our stuff. Much better to measure yourself the way you actually use something, or to see what an independent measuring org found. Just like for the fuel consumption ratings of cars in real-world use.

[blade2008]

Hi,

I am thinking to buy a Panasonic Plasma or LCD from their 42 inch G10 series.

I am just curious about the energy/power consumption of the latest Plasma displays from Panasonic vs the LCDs. Is there still a huge difference or is it now neglect able.

thx

Ahmed

[jvincent]

Plasmas are generally more power hungry than LCDs but they have gotten better. Tf you are comparing two specific models just go to the manufacturers web site and check the specs.

[57]

blade2008 Your post was moved to an existing thread. Please read earlier posts here and realize that the power consumption is directly related to how the TV is set up. When set up properly, it often uses less power than if left in the default vivid modes. This goes for both LCDs (backlight settings) and Plasmas (programme and setting dependent.

[HT gearhead]

Originally Posted by David Susilo

The problem with "sit closer to the tv" argument, for a 20" 4:3 TV and to get an image impact equivalent to what I'm currently using, I have to sit about 12" away from the TV when I'm watcjing a 21:9 movies

For that Imax experience you can always watch the 20 inch through binoculars.

[jeffc]

Is this something I should be considering when I am looking for a TV? How much more energy and cost is it to run a Plasma vs an LCD, all things being equal (resolution, size, amount used, etc.)?

[cooper83]

Is this something I should be considering when I am looking for a TV?

No, no it isn't.

[Bplayer]

The power ratings stated below are from CNET reviews where the power consumption of calibrated was measured for identical blended content. The actual power consumption by a plasma TV is more variable than an LCD depending on the amount a white content displayed. The CNET measurements may not be accurate for your typical viewing conditions.

Here are the estimated costs for two typical TV used for 6 hours per day, 365 days for the year:

Panasonic TCP50V10, rated at 294.92w will cost about $64.61 per year

Samsung LN52B750, rated at 128.86w will cost about $28.14 per year

The costs are calculated using a billing rate of 10 cents per KWh.

An equivalent LED TV will use even less power.

Only you can judge if this will be significant to you if the TV is this amount for 5 or even 10 years.

[David Susilo]

Also don't forget that the calibrated screen usually is set at 45 ftL brightness (which in my personal opinion, too bright to be viewed in a dark room). I usually bring down the brightness level to about 20 ftL and the electrical consumption price gap will go even further down.

[hoodlum]

The 2010 Panasonic plasmas are showing a 40% drop in Maximum wattage which should translate to a usage rating of less than 200W for the new 50" (approx $40 per year).

I'd be more concerned about older electronics that don't have a good power save mode.

[Spike4881]

Well according to the futureshop details section:
My Panny TCP50G10 plasma uses 269 watts.
My father in law's Sony 52" W series LCD uses 300 watts.

Not the final say by any means but I don't think power consumption is not the big deal it used to be.

[AmowAgou]

Originally Posted by Bplayer

Here are the estimated costs for two typical TV used for 6 hours per day, 365 days for the year:

Panasonic TCP50V10, rated at 294.92w will cost about $64.61 per year

Samsung LN52B750, rated at 128.86w will cost about $28.14 per year

FYI, you may find the power consumption of most TVs from the following: http://www.cee1.org/files/TVQualifyingProductList.pdf

The data there should be more accurate than CNET's own measurement.

[Bplayer]

Originally Posted by AmowAgou

FYI, you may find the power consumption of most TVs from the following: http://www.cee1.org/files/TVQualifyingProductList.pdf

The data there should be more accurate than CNET's own measurement.

It is an interesting table. For example, I discovered that the Screen Area is not the same for all TV of the same Screen Size.

Getting back to the point of the thread, the power draw by a TV will vary depending on user configurable settings and the content being displayed. Any available comparisons should therefore be treated as guidelines rather than hard fact.

In theory, side by side measurements of calibrated TVs using the same video content (designed to represent typical viewing content) should provide more realistic real world results than the CEE table. The power consumption from a TV setup to meet the CEE testing standards will be different to a calibrated TV. It could be more or it could be less. For this reason I would be in favour of the CNET results over the CEE table.

[AmowAgou]

Originally Posted by Bplayer

In theory, side by side measurements of calibrated TVs using the same video content (designed to represent typical viewing content) should provide more realistic real world results than the CEE table. The power consumption from a TV setup to meet the CEE testing standards will be different to a calibrated TV. It could be more or it could be less. For this reason I would be in favour of the CNET results over the CEE table.

Most people do not caliabrate their TVs, they just set the TV to standard mode an watch. That's why CEE's data is more representative of the real life situation.