http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20070205PR201.html

LCD panel shipments surpassed those of PDPs since August 2006, noted the research firm, adding that LCD shipments rose at a monthly rate of 5%, while PDP shipments plunged by more than 10%.

Shipments of 40-inch range LCD panels jumped from 90,000 units in 2004 to 1.2 million units in 2005, and then skyrocketed by more than six times on year in 2006, the research said.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20070205PR201.html
See the Plasma hit man is at it again wish :eek: you luck

Hey, lets see those stats on 50+ panels.
You know, where plasma's are actually competing head to head. :rolleyes:

Plasma's may be competing somewhat head-to-head in the 50+ market until 8G panels create a larger price discrepancy between LCD and Plasma, but the 50+ market is a VERY tiny market at the moment.

I'm no expert on the current television markets, but it appears that all of the so called "analysts" have predicted either death of plasma or at least for LCD to become the King. I own neither technology yet, and have no clue what will really happen, but it makes sense with LCD technology drastically improving annually and LCD prices dropping sharply, yet Plasma technology only improving slightly and prices (to manufacture) also only decreasing slightly.

Right now, Plasma seems to have an edge in PQ compared to most LCD's, but that probably won't last long. I'm probably still going to to purchase a Plasma t.v. for my grandmother shortly as it fits her needs best.

PDP shipments still rose 800 units! If I'm reading this right?
Thats at 40" where LCD has the price advantage. I tend to agree with the above poster whats the story over 50". That over 50" market is growing by leaps and bounds as the price of big panels meets the buyers budgets better.
As prices drop which they have in PDP's this variance will dwindle. So it looks like a banner year for both formats.

http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20070205PR201.html


Why should I care?

It is not important to me if lcd sells more than plasma. It is important to me that plasma has better PQ. Which it does.

Why should I care?

It is not important to me if lcd sells more than plasma. It is important to me that plasma has better PQ. Which it does.

Agreed. Maybe this will drive plasmas prices down so I can buy another one. I wouldn't mine one for my bedroom :)

I just read that graph as more uninformed people are making more uninformed decisions... ;)

And I read it as informed people speaking with their wallets. ;)

And I read it as informed people speaking with their wallets. ;)

Nah...just a bunch of kiddies buying a small lcd for gaming. :rolleyes:

Nah...just a bunch of kiddies buying a small lcd for gaming. :rolleyes:

Kiddies whos parents told them horror stories of plasma burnin when they were younger ;) Give me a little caution for a much better picture/display any day :p

PDP shipments still rose 800 units! If I'm reading this right?

Actually, I think they rose by 800,000 units. The units of that graph are 'k' units, meaning thousands.

And I'm curious what "40-inch range" means. I wouldn't be surprised if they're including anything between 37" and 42". So the title is meant to make you think 42" units, but it probably also includes 37" units as well.

Why should I care?

It is not important to me if lcd sells more than plasma. It is important to me that plasma has better PQ. Which it does.

Maybe in the 720p and lower class. But the 1080p LCD Flat Screen's look spectacular! And at that resolution, price is a much bigger factor than PQ.

Note that the story isn't saying LCDs are better than Plasma, only that Plasma marketshare is being eroded by LCD sales.


They'll keep making plasma displays until it becomes economically unwise to do so. Granted, the smaller the market gets, the lower R&D budgets will get, and thus technological improvements will slow & stall as plasma gets eclipsed.

And I'm curious what "40-inch range" means. I wouldn't be surprised if they're including anything between 37" and 42". So the title is meant to make you think 42" units, but it probably also includes 37" units as well.

I would not put it past them to only be including 37" plasma panels and not the 42". :rolleyes:

We just got a Toshiba LCD 1080P panel in our showroom yesterday and although its a nice display I have it right next to the Pio 5070 and a Panasonic 9UK I just still see a huge difference especially when it comes to the smoothness of the motion.

I think it's already expected that LCD would gain in the sales department over plasma.

Because for Joe-6-pack and for average people of the world, when buying a flat panel TV/HDTV, price is the most important factor for them.

They don't need the best PQ because for them, as long as it is flat and displays a good image, they're sold on it.

Plus, LCDs can be released in smaller sizes to satisfy the lower-end of HDTV buyers as well for people who live in very small or cramp places where anything that is 50 inch and above is too big. The only smallest size I've seen for Plasma is 37 inches and that may not be enough suit those who desire for a "flat panel" TV but are really tight on budget. Where plasma TV reaches the rich people/PQ display enthusiasts, it DOES NOT however work for the majority of the global population (where low pricing is important for them)

In short, these average buyers just want a "flat TV" at the cheapest price possible and this is what LCD can give them at the moment.

Power consumption is also the enemy of Plasma TV tech. Right now, LCD maintains a 30-80w advantage over Plasma TV tech. For those on a tight budget, this will indeed scare them away from Plasma and into LCD.

I do admit though that it is also important to keep an eye on Pioneer 8G sets as it might go below the 300w mark (for a 50inch class screen). I'll be keeping an eye on the power consumption figure for this.

I do admit though that plasma TV tech is still improving (with the latest being the 1080p/24fps support from Pioneer 7G sets) but I still do want to check on how Plasma tech would improve further.

So far, burn-in has been eliminated, green-screen effect syndromes are becoming non-existent, higher black levels have been achieved over older models (ie. Pioneer 8th gen), 1080p/24 fps has been added since Gen 7, 1080p@50-60fps to be applied on the Pioneer 8G sets, HDMI 1.3 also ready for primetime (same time with LCD, RPTV, etc.) and prices also dropping as well.

I may consider a Pioneer plasma as "Flat Panel TV #3" in my family's home....but I will be on the lookout for power consumption. Now that it is falling below the 300w mark, I want to see as to how far the level can fall.

Flatpanel TV #1 = OLED TV by 2009 (either Sony or Samsung)
Flatpanel TV #2 = 8th gen LCD TV (1080p) from Samsung (H2 of this year).
Flatpanel TV #3 = ***********************

If Pioneer satisfies/passes my power consumption expectations for it, then they'd be happy to see their product as my Flatpanel TV #3 :)

If Pioneer satisfies/passes my power consumption expectations for it, then they'd be happy to see their product as my Flatpanel TV #3 :)

Most of your post was pretty agreeable but this power thing is really strange.
Do you always scrutinize all of your purchases by power consumtion?
If so then ok but I question this mentality overall and if it is consistent.
I see people make a big deal about 80watts and then turn around and buy some other product without ANY regard for power usage.
Seems way overblown when it comes to HDTV.

For what it is worth, I havent seen my power bill jump up at all on my pioneer 5071hd. Granted, it is only on 4-8 hours a day... ;) I totally agree with elemental for this...power consumption is kind of a silly thing to base a HD-TV purchase off anymore...differences are minimal compared to what they used to be.

this may be kind of off topic, but why are there no plasma sizes between 42" and 50"? A 46" plasma would be nice...

this may be kind of off topic, but why are there no plasma sizes between 42" and 50"? A 46" plasma would be nice...


Glass for plasma panels come from a very limited number of factories in the world, and all they produce is the 42" and 50" models, nothing inbetween. Most likely for efficiency and throughput.

Didn't the more affordable 1080p LCD's start coming out about the time that the chart shows LCD's surpassing Plasmas? If so, I think that explains it. J6P, buying a panel at Best Buy or Circuit City, is told by the sales drone that the LCD is better because it's got a higher resolution. The product is sold, just because someone says it's better.

I bought my plasma about a month ago, and as I was researching them (I've had HDTV for 5 years, this was my first panel), friends and people in the stores were asking me why I wanted plasma, since it would "burn out" in less than 5 years, or need to be replaced, etc. I assured them that it isn't the case, why would a company intentionally sell a product that needs replacing after 5 years? Somehow they got sold on LCDs as better, and that's all there was to it.

This is a goofy thread.

I own both, the LCD is in the bedroom and the bigger plasma is in the living room. Even though the LCD is brand new and the plasma is 3 years old, the plasma definitely holds the edge in picture quality.

I doubt any consumer anywhere has any idea what the power consumption is of the set they buy.

The economic cost of 60 watts more power, assuming 5 hours of use a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year: 60 * 5 * 7 * 52 = 109.2 KWh. Average US cost of a KWh is 14 cents, for a cost increment of $15.28 a year.

Big whoop.

Most of your post was pretty agreeable but this power thing is really strange.
Do you always scrutinize all of your purchases by power consumtion?
If so then ok but I question this mentality overall and if it is consistent.
I see people make a big deal about 80watts and then turn around and buy some other product without ANY regard for power usage.
Seems way overblown when it comes to HDTV.

Power consumption is one of my top 5 important factors.

Because in the Philippines (a third-world tropical country), you NEED an airconditioning system for all seven days in one week. Unlike temperate/four-season areas (like you guys in the USA, Japan or whatever), we have no winter which means that we can't use nature to get cool temperature. A/C consumption in my country is even higher than even the hottest areas in America (ie. Arizona, Texas).

And since we have the 2nd highest power rates in Asia (next to Japan), power consumption is of HIGH importance.

Pioneer Singapore lists that their 7th gen plasma at 50 inch has 348w as their power consumption. Sony Asia-Pacific lists that their BRAVIA X series (similar to XBR 2/3) at 52 inches has 330w. The 7th gen Pioneer at 42 inches gets 293w compared to the Sony BRAVIA X series 46 inch model having just 260w. All sets are AC 100-240V 50/60 hz.

So from what I said earlier regarding wattage differnce of 30-80 watts, I guess the figure is now at 10-40 watts average. Still favors LCD though and I think the LCD think won't slack off in that department in spite of having a big lead in power consumption figures. 10 watts difference is already a BIG difference for people in 3rd world countries so the cards need to be played right all they way.

I do promise though that I would keep an eye out on power cosumption figures for the 8th gen Pioneer sets.

My only requirement is for a 50 WATT drop in power consumption. Sony has proven that they can drop 50-70 watts from their predecessor. If Sony can do it, then I think that Pioneer can probably do it as well and I WANT them to do it :D

That's my basis for whether their set would make it to my "Flatpanel TV #3".

You do realize that Plasma can actually use LESS power than a similar LCD in actual usage? :eek:

I may not need ac 7 days a week, but when I woke up this morning the temperature was 4 degrees below 0. Our temperature hasn't been above freezing in 3 weeks. I would bet my energy bill per year is higher than yours. I would have to agree with nuke that the difference of $15 per year between a plasma and a lcd is insignificant.
Living in a temperate zone isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I would like a 46" Plasma, as well, and it should be 1366x768 at least, but there have never been any signs that they will create such a TV. :(
At 50" they have 1366x768 and now a few 1920x1080 choices.
But we really want to down size from our current 1366x768 50" LCD RPTV.
However, not only would we have to go to 42", but the res. would only be 1024x768.
I know Plasma has all sort of advantages over my TV, but I can't over the res.
Curiously, there will soon be (when, I don't know?) a 42" 1920x1080 Plasma.
Heck, I would be happy with a 42" 1366x768 Plasma.
If you have any info., please let us know.

I would like a 46" Plasma, as well, and it should be 1366x768 at least, but there have never been any signs that they will create such a TV. :(
At 50" they have 1366x768 and now a few 1920x1080 choices.
But we really want to down size from our current 1366x768 50" LCD RPTV.
However, not only would we have to go to 42", but the res. would only be 1024x768.
I know Plasma has all sort of advantages over my TV, but I can't over the res.
Curiously, there will soon be (when, I don't know?) a 42" 1920x1080 Plasma.
Heck, I would be happy with a 42" 1366x768 Plasma.
If you have any info., please let us know.

there actually is a 42" 1366x768 plasma, and it's a Panasonic! I believe it's the Chinese model (see the CES 2007 Panasonic Plasma thread for more info.)...

And it is rumoured that the new 42" 75u/77u series may come with this resolution as well. It was still speculation when I read this a few weeks ago - I don't know if anything has changed or if any new information has surfaced. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

there actually is a 42" 1366x768 plasma, and it's a Panasonic! I believe it's the Chinese model (see the CES 2007 Panasonic Plasma thread for more info.)...

And it is rumoured that the new 42" 75u/77u series may come with this resolution as well. It was still speculation when I read this a few weeks ago - I don't know if anything has changed or if any new information has surfaced. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
That would be great.
How about Pioneer, also?
You know, I don't remember if they quoted resolutions for the Panny 42" plasmas for 2007 or not.
You are apparently saying they didn't, and the res. changed was rumored; I hope it is true.
It would make sense, since the Panny 50" plasmas will have a higher res. option.

Guys guys guys kool down, can't you see that you argue like kids about who's better LCD or Plasma? by the time you would settle this SED & OLED will be introduced and LCD & Plasma will be your main stream sets and at that time you can afford buying both at the same time, and still people would say nah why buy now we'll just wait for SED & OLED prices to come down, so please enjoy what you have for technology has made both LCD & Plasma an eye candy that is much more affordable than once was.

this may be kind of off topic, but why are there no plasma sizes between 42" and 50"? A 46" plasma would be nice...


CPT - Chunghwa Picture Tubes used to make 46" ED (852x480) Panels few years ago. Those panels were used on Plasmas such as BenQ pdp46w1, Vizio P4, Gateway 46", Studio Experience 46" and many others. And a 46"HD Version was supposed to be released around 2004. But I never heard about it anymore. Chunghwa Picture Tubes now only manufacturers LCD Panels.

You do realize that Plasma can actually use LESS power than a similar LCD in actual usage? :eek:

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be case. Probably plasma TV manufacturers are *lazy* to improve the power consumption ratings even further.

Here's a comparo of 7th gen TV sets.

Pioneer

PDP-427XG (42-inch) = 293 watts
PDP-507XG (50-inch) = 348 watts

Sony

KLV-46X200A (46 inch) = 260 watts
KLV-52X200A (52 inch) = 330 watts

So either the plasma tech needs more improvements in the power consumption area or plasma set manufacturers need to STOP BEING LAZY by making more and even better improvements to decrease watt consumption.

But if it's caused by either factor (or BOTH :eek: ), the power consumption figure must go down further ASAP.

Btw, where I live, the coolest temperature ever recorded was 10 degrees in celcius (and that's in the mountainous areas). Down in the city and low-lying areas, it's probably 20 as the lowest and that's during rainy/wet seasons (the ONLY cool weather period in each year).

Otherwise, it can get as hot as 30-40 degrees here in tropical Asia.

Light ouput varies in Plasmas so most of the time they use less energy than their advertised ratings. LCD backlights are always on so they always use their full rating.

Light ouput varies in Plasmas so most of the time they use less energy than their advertised ratings. LCD backlights are always on so they always use their full rating.

Not completely true "LCD backlights are always on so they always use their full rating". LCDs do use a constant amount of power but not necessarily their "full rating". The 'full rating' is based on the backlight being set to its highest level. Many LCDs allow the user the adjust the backlight levels. Setting the backlight at a lower setting can reduce LCD power requirements by half. Out of the box, a Sony BR1 used 223 watts. Following a backlight adjustment the same Sony used a constant 110 watts.

As for which technology uses less power it really is a function of your viewing habits. If you watch a lot of movies (more dark scenes), the plasma will generally cost you less each month. If you watch a lot of cartoons and sports, (brighter scenes) the LCD, even on full brightness, will cost you less.

Most lcds now have dynamic contrast which varies the output of the backlight so it should not be constant. This will be taken further when lcds get led local dimming.

I do agree that will all display tech, there is always a native contrast ratio (or what laymen and myself call as the "minimum contrast ratio" :P)

Use dynamic (or maximum :D) if you want brightest, eyeball-scorching settings for your display at the expense of higher power consumption.

But since most display tech have "economy mode" features in them, activating these will automatically set brightness and contrast levels to their lowest and you save more energy from there.

So yeah..................

I don't know if SED and OLED will push the envelope even further with their <100w maximum power consumption levels (using AC 100-240V 50/60hz) but current speculation has so far proven this to happen when these tech arrive in the future.

Geezzz, got on this thread to help with decision on plasma vs LCD and spent half my time reading about power consumption! As long as my lights don't dim when I turn the set on, I'm happy. :)
I have a philips 42" plasma in the family room and was considering a 37" LCD for the bedroom, but the family room has lots of windows and so it is a bright room. Would I be better off moving the plasma to the bedroom, and going with a 42" LCD in a bright room (the family room)?

Here is a thread for plasma vs LCD. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767932.

Here is a thread for plasma vs LCD. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767932.

Exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks!!!!