Super Bowl 4K fail

[RolloTheGreat]

Makes a massive difference on my bill.  I had a 32" WS CRT prior to the Hisense LED LCD.

Even switching from compact flouro to LED light globes produced a $15 saving on the bill.

I don't trust that sites power figure for plasma either, it is way too low sitting where and LCD with cold cathode backlight (what preceded LED LCD) would be.

The power for the 55" LED LCD is wrong too.  My Hisense 55" pulls 100W.  That is running flat out with no energy saving measures switched on (= dim horrible viewing).

The plasma can only pull pull the quoted figure if you turn on every possible energy saving trick they have, certainly the older plasma's most people would have at home won't get within bulls roar of Rollo's bullshit figure.

Or you could just be wrong, as usual.


http://www.cnet.com/news/what-you-need-t...nsumption/

Since 2011 the FTC has required that every TV display a yellow and black Energy Guide label estimating how much it costs to run for a year. The label assumes a price for electricity (11 cents/kWh) and a baseline usage (5 hours per day).

The cost is tiny. A typical label can read anywhere from $6 for 32-inch LEDs to $38 for 65-inch plasmas (PDF). Per year. That's from 50 cents to $3.18 per month. If that's the definition of chump change to you, you're probably not alone.

They're required by law to do standardized energy cost disclosure.

But even if you double the figures on the Energy Guide label, even the largest, least efficient TVs still cost less per month than a decent lunch. The most power-hungry TV I've recently tested, Panasonic's 65-inch TC-P65VT50, costs about $81 per year, or $6.77 per month. And that's after calibrating the picture so it's suitable for viewing in moderate lighting.

If I had to worry about investing $6.77/month GStan, my TV's power consumption would be the least of my worries.

So if you're saving $5/mo watching the inferior LED TV GStan what are you spending the savings on? A gallon of gas? A magazine? Cup of coffee at Starbucks?