Samsung 63" Plasma PN63A650 $2299

[RearAdmiral]

Newegg is offering this tv for $2299. It is cheaper than the 58" version. Seems like a pretty ludicrous deal to me.

 

[MrC4]

Does this come with a free nuclear reactor to power this thing up? I love my 50" Samsung plasma but boy does it suck up the juice!

 

[Shummy007]

I've had good experience with Samsung. Have the 56ish" Samsung DLP and love it. Was thinking of getting the 72" DLP rear projection for $1700ish...or would this 63" plasma be a better deal?

 

[videopho]

It wasn't long ago that this size of plasma tv used to cost ten of thousand.
Plasma does suck up juice from the ac line because I do have a 42 incher myself but I do love its blackness and brightness vs the LCD.

 

[IamDavid]

If I was in the market for another TV I'd jump in a heart beat! Samsung has always impressed me...

 

[KK]

Yeah, I seen this earlier today, sounds like an awesome deal. 185 pounds or something like that with the stand, that thing must be huge.

 

[Jawadali]

Originally posted by: Shummy007
I've had good experience with Samsung. Have the 56ish" Samsung DLP and love it. Was thinking of getting the 72" DLP rear projection for $1700ish...or would this 63" plasma be a better deal?

Good question.

 

[SithSolo1]

lol according to the specs it uses 670 watts under load.

 

[RearAdmiral]

Originally posted by: SithSolo1
lol according to the specs it uses 670 watts under load.

lol that's a lot

 

[Kwint Sommer]

Originally posted by: RearAdmiral

Originally posted by: SithSolo1
lol according to the specs it uses 670 watts under load.

lol that's a lot

This weekend I plan to play with a 3.5 kW neon sign transformer and the neon sign it use to power was smaller than a 72" TV. Comparatively, it's really not that much power.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: SithSolo1
lol according to the specs it uses 670 watts under load.[/q

Not so bad considering it consumes much less than the average hair dryer @ full load. LOL

 

[SithSolo1]

I'm all for comparisons but lets try to keep it close to apples to apples. Compared to LCD/DLP TVs of similar size the plasma is probably using twice the energy.

 

[grohl]

Damn you hot deals!

Bought one online at 12:30 CST. Got curious and called to confirm price was correct - they have 105 left as of then.

No tax and free shipping, plus a bevy of good reviews. Screw the power consumption, it's only on a few hours a day x cost savings over a similar size LCD = win.

 

[grohl]

apparently the LCD vs plasma power consumption debate is more complicated:

http://www.displayblog.com/200...umption-lcd-vs-plasma/

 

[Greg04]

Originally posted by: grohl
apparently the LCD vs plasma power consumption debate is more complicated:

http://www.displayblog.com/200...umption-lcd-vs-plasma/

This and the old light vs dark movie debate with plasmas...BS. I tested out a few of my friends plasmas using a killawatt meter and tested different movies. POTC is a darker movie, but the meter readings were practally identical after two hours of very different brightness ranges --- within 15w of other "bright" movies, and spot on with the manual's claim.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: grohl
apparently the LCD vs plasma power consumption debate is more complicated:

http://www.displayblog.com/200...umption-lcd-vs-plasma/

Results from individual testing:

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-...g=contentBody;nextPage

The Samsung is a bit of a power hog, but to be fair, it's less so than the equivalent Sharp LCD.

 

[Kwint Sommer]

Energy efficiency is great and all but at the end of the day no matter how much of a power hog it is, you're paying a few cents an hour so if you're thinking about spending $1000+ on a display, what matters is how it looks and from the reviews I've read this is one good looking tv.