Philips' Eco TV: The Prius of televisions

The 42PFL5603D is the new energy-efficiency champ.

(Credit: Philips)

It's official: The Philips 42PFL5603D consumes less power than any HDTV we've tested, regardless of screen size. The so-called Eco TV earned our nod for Best in Show at CES by hugging trees harder than any flat-panel HDTV yet. We based that decision partly on a Watts Up! power meter Philips had set up in its booth, which showed the 42-inch LCD sucking down electricity at a miserly rate between 60 and 80 watts (check out the video).

As proven by our somewhat more rigorous power consumption test, the Eco TV deserves a place next to your Prius, your low-flow toilet valve, and your almost-watched copy of An Inconvenient Truth. The display set new records among all of the HDTVs whose power use we've tracked, scoring an average of 91.23 watts in the default picture setting, 67.29 watts in the power saver mode--that's right, barely more than a standard incandescent light bulb--and just 0.33 watt in standby (we suspect standby consumption is even lower than that, but our equipment can't measure that low). Comparing against other HDTVs' default modes, the closest competitor was a 27-inch LCD at 105 watts. In the Philips' screen size class, by comparison, the closest 42-inch plasma measured 188.26 watts and the closest 42-inch LCD measured 134.04.

In default picture mode, we estimate it will cost just $28.69 in electricity to run the 42PFL4603D for a year--about $6 less than its closest competitor--while power saver mode brings that cost down to $21.28. That estimate assumes a cost of 10.6 cents per kilowatt hour and a picture-on time of 8 hours per day, both national averages.

The bad news? The Eco TV uses a novel variable backlight to achieve its low wattage numbers, turning the light output down in dark scenes. Most other LCDs keep the backlight, and thus power use, at a constant level regardless of screen content. We haven't has a chance to test it thoroughly, but initial indications are that the fluctuating backlight harms picture quality, flashing subtly but distractingly enough to annoy careful watchers, especially in transitions between light and dark scenes. We'll have the complete story when the full 42PFL5603D review posts later next week.

[robertorosco]

It saves money and energy, Woo!!! But it is a rip off of the original iMac G4 design, but just in black. Try again.

[iPod_Killer]

apple fanboy ?!?!?!? 'nuff said. we don't care if this TV almost looks like the iMac G4. It's a great looking TV and it consumes less power period.

Back to the blog post, does on the long run the cost of this tv will equal other ones ? I mean, it consumes less power but does come with a high initial price ?
This cost compared to other tvs and their power consumption ? (if you see what I mean )

[Scouser Tommy]

The related blog post for Panasonic TH-50PZ800U brings up the Philips Model 42PFL5603D.

[katzmaier]

Fixed, thanks.

[boopiejones]

consumes less power but has poor picture quality? $6 over the course of a entire year savings? do you realize that the $6 is derived based on the total energy cost to watch TV for EIGHT HOURS A DAY, 365 days a year???? That means you'd only save $18 if you had the TV on non-stop for an entire year. hardly worth the savings if the picture quality is lacking.

all TVs are so close in power consumption that it really isn't worth worrying about. a quick look at all 56 inch TVs tested shows a $30/year difference from the best to the worst. if you are so cash strapped that you can't afford $2.50/month, how did you afford to buy a 56 inch plasma in the first place?

[superbob2122]

i got my philips tv at www.consumerdepot. com