Samsung PN58C6400 Plasma HDTV
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Discussions about Silent Computing
So now we are going to blame Plasma TVs for all the worlds ills?...the pro-plasma videophile point of view is too dismissive of the environmental deprivations, conflicts, wars, and suffering caused by our collective insatiable hunger for energy. Our recommendation is to pass by this plasma.
Going by the 0.20 rule of thumb a 58" TV should use less than 287W (1436in^2). The actual 2010 Energy star rule is Pmax = 0.120 * A + 25, which for this case is 197W. In 2012 the Energy star rules will be tightened again and the limit for large TVs (>50") is Pmax = 108. Simple, no math involved you can't use more than 108W. If you have a smaller TV the rule will be Pmax = 0.084 * A + 18 which gives you a limit of 107W at 50" and 94W at 46".* CEA Study finds dramatic increase in TV energy efficiency. The full report (PDF) is at ce.org
# LCD active power use fell 63 percent from 2003 to 2010.
# LCD standby power use dropped 87 percent from 2004 to 2010.
# Plasma TV active power use dropped 41 percent from 2008 to 2010.
# Plasma TV standby use fell 85 percent from 2008 to 2010.
# Figure 6 in the full report shows that even in the same model year there is a wide variation in power from one TV to another. The data for 2010 has a TV that draws 75W and a TV in the same category that draws 200W. Buyers will still have to put some effort in to be sure they are buying an efficient model. Power Density (W/in^2) should be below 0.20 to be considered above average efficiency. ENERGY STAR qualified TVs use about 40% less energy than standard units in all modes of operation (stand-by and active). Lists of Energy Star TVs are available in Excel and PDF formats. If you want the most efficient TV look for one introduced after May 1, 2010 using the Energy Start 4.1 certification method. Version 5.1 will become effective May 1, 2012.
This is simply not true. Consumers have been led to believe LED TVs last longer. However, the LEDs in these TVs are rated at 30,000 hrs lamp life. I didn't make this number up. I have a contact at LG that told me that. LG was (and likely still is) supplying LED lamps to other TV manufacturers. These are specially binned blue LEDs; only the whitest blue LEDs make it. They are expensive to make, and they are very bright and thus do not last forever like a traditional LED. Furthermore, the most common cause for failure for a TV is control board (electronic) failure, which is common to both Plasma and LCD/LED, thus making panel life a moot point. Build quality matters more than the panel type itself when we are talking about longevity.NeilBlanchard wrote:The newest Samsung LED backlit LCD's with 240Hz refresh rates also have amazing dynamic contrast ratio and virtually 180 degree viewing angles. Their lifespan should be much longer than any other type of TV monitor. And they use less than half the power -- what's not to like? Why would you buy a plasma or higher power consumption LCD model? ...
IMO value per unit of consumption is a better metric. Translating the difference in power usage b/w the LCD and plasma compared in the review to $ (US) using the national average price per KWH nets to ~$40/year @ 4 hours per day (higher than my actual usage).MikeC wrote:OK, guys, it's possible I went a little too far with the last few statements in this review. But hey, now everyone knows exactly what's wrong with this TV, right? My opinion doesn't matter, as those who disagree will disagree, and those who agree thought that way to start with... so it hurts no one and nothing for me to get the satisfaction of saying this is a gas guzzler. I have hated all types of gas guzzlers for decades, and if I can't express that opinion in my on article in my own site... well, where's the fun in that?
I think that "other videophile" was meMikeC wrote: Other videophiles claim that the performance strengths of plasma still make it the best HD TV option, that at a given price point it is better in almost every metric (black levels, contrast, color accuracy and pixel response) compared to LCD. If the power demand of this Samsung plasma TV is typical, the pro-plasma videophile point of view is too dismissive of the environmental deprivations, conflicts, wars, and suffering caused by our collective insatiable hunger for energy. Our recommendation is to pass by this plasma, perhaps any big plasma.
Modern plasmas shouldn't have issues with burn-in, but they are much more susceptible to image retention (IR) than LCDs. If the primary use case is as a PC monitor plasma is probably not the best choice; in normal home theater usage (TV, Movies, etc) neither should be a concern. If the display does experience IR, most TVs include a "wipe" feature that can be use to remove it.Hazelrah wrote:I didn't see it mentioned in the review, but one other thing you might want to check for in future plasma TVs is whether there are any problems with image retention/burn-in. This is something inherent with plasma technology and different manufacturers/models have different ways of dealing with it. HTPC users really need to watch out for it because your standard HTPC front-end has quite a few static parts.
TBC, I agree that power consumption is an area where plasma needs to do better. I'd be surprised if local LED dimming LCD tech doesn't catch up in PQ within the next couple/three years; when that happens it will be very hard for it to compete if the power numbers don't look a lot better.MikeC wrote:OK, Andy (babgvant), you could be right. I've softened the conclusions just a bit, and suggested readers to come look at this forum for counterpoints to my view.
NP, happy to help. I've been using SPCR as a reference point for my HTPC builds for foreverMikeC wrote: And thanks, again, for your help back when judder was making me crazy.
This is interesting. I worked in the lighting field for a while, and the shortest life LED lamps we specified were 50,000 hour. I think most were actually 100,000 hour. Of course, this all depends on junction temperatures, and these things had massive heat sinks. And the manufacturers may have been fudging the numbers. Typically the numbers spewed by device manufacturers is actually the rated life of the LED assuming perfectly controlled operation with super amazing heat sinking. No one seems to be adjusting for the fact that you just crammed 5,000 LEDs into a 5'x3.5'x.5' box with no fan (disclaimer: my dimensions and quantities are totally uninformed).jubrany wrote:the LEDs in these TVs are rated at 30,000 hrs lamp life.
No question all of these lights dim over time. The dimming in my 4-year old Sony 40" LCD is fairly dramatic; whether LEDs last better....? I've seen claims that the latest plasma screens will go 100,000 hrs being 50% dimmer -- but this I have to witness to believe. [/quote]andymcca wrote:This is interesting. I worked in the lighting field for a while, and the shortest life LED lamps we specified were 50,000 hour. I think most were actually 100,000 hour. Of course, this all depends on junction temperatures, and these things had massive heat sinks. And the manufacturers may have been fudging the numbers. Typically the numbers spewed by device manufacturers is actually the rated life of the LED assuming perfectly controlled operation with super amazing heat sinking. No one seems to be adjusting for the fact that you just crammed 5,000 LEDs into a 5'x3.5'x.5' box with no fan (disclaimer: my dimensions and quantities are totally uninformed).jubrany wrote:the LEDs in these TVs are rated at 30,000 hrs lamp life.
Agreed... not when it makes economic sense, but when it hurts not to buy efficiency. So often avoidance of pain seems more of a motivation in these kinds of scenarios. On the other hand, cars (and smooth paved roads for them) have been subsidized for as long as they've been around, for the benefit of corporations that make & sell cars, oil companies, etc. Their "real world cost" has never been paid at the dealers' showrooms -- and still isn't. (Note -- the price of gas at the pump is consistently the lowest in the US among all industrialized countries. The US price is currently lower than in a hundred other countries. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_g ... ine-prices)As for the energy efficiency arguement, why doesn't energy cost more? If there is a real-world cost associated with it, why is this not passed on to the consumer? I agree that these costs exist, but we need an economic system which recognizes them, and prices accordingly. People will buy a more efficient TV for them when it makes economic sense.
Sounds about right. The extra 5 probably denotes some variant of Ac cord or voltage. According to jubrany (poster in this thread), the C6400/6500 are the same.Scoop wrote:I wonder what this thing is called in Europe. PS58C6505 ? Why oh why can't they call them the same across regions..