Home  |  News  |  Reviews  | About Search :  HardWare.fr 



  Processors

  Motherboards

  Graphic Cards

  Multimedia

  Storage

  Imaging

  Monitors

  Miscellaneous
Advertise on BeHardware.com
Review index:
Screen comparative test : CRT vs LCD
by Vincent Alzieu
Published on August 24, 2004

The bill : buying + electric consumption
LCd screens are more expensive and the FP767-12 isn’t an exception.
The NEC screen is just a little bit cheaper. The Diamond Pro 930SB is more expensive than a standard 19” and is one of the most expensive screens of its category. However it is possible to find it cheaper online.

Buying the product is one thing, but the electrical consumption is another thing. If these screens are switched on almost all day long, using them has a price. We used a "Power Control" tool to measure their electrical consumptions. According to this measuring tool, the BenQ 767-12 needs 43 Watts. A screen switched on permanently will cost 43 watts / 1 000 x 24 hours x 365 days x 0.1057 dollar per kWh = $49.84. For five years the electrical consumption will cost $249.21. If you use moderately your screen 1 hour every two days (200 days a year for example) the annual cost will be $1.1 only.
The DPro930SB requires 91 Watts. The annual cost is $105 and $527 for five years if the screen is permanently switched on.

Here is a graphic of the overall costs for three and five years. These graphs include the buying price plus the electrical costs 7 days a week 365 days.



This isn’t really surprising: LCD screens are cheaper to use with time than CRT screens. Using an LCD or a CRT screen 18 hours, 365 days a year has the same cost. However if the screen is permanently switched on, the LCD is cheaper to use.



The results are slightly different for five years. The CRT is cheaper to use if it is switched on less than 10 hours a day.

Adding the buying price to the electrical consumption shows that the BenQ is cheaper than the Mitsubishi screen for daily long uses. If the screen isn’t constantly used, the CRT technology remains cheaper in along run.

Of course with a $100 cheaper screen results might change the results. The Mitsubishi MultiSync 95f screen is cheaper to buy but has a higher electrical consumption 125W instead of 91 W (Nec-Mitsubishi measure). If the screen is permanently switched on the electrical consumption will be $724. The overall cost including the buying price is $1009 and is superior to the DPro930SB.

<< Previous page
Screen comparative test : CRT vs LCD

Page index
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Next page >>
Design, bulkiness  




Copyright © 1997- Hardware.fr SARL. All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines.