Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:21 pm

I'm looking to get a new Plasma or LCD TV for a max budget of about £600. I found the following what seem like great bargains:

Samsung TV - 42" Plasma PS42C450 (£399)
UMC TV - 40" LCD, no model number? (£499)

What I'm really curious about is the price of the Samsung, it's much cheaper than the UMC TV and I've never even heard of their brand.

Any advice on which one, if either, I should be getting? As most people, I'll be watching HD films on it and might even hook my computer to it to play a few games.

Thanks!
Spreckle
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:24 pm

I have a 42" Samsung 720p plasma that I got for $499 back in August of 2010. Its been AWESOME. Plasma > LCD in my book.
Having twins has dramatically reduced the time I have to nerd out.
Corrado
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Gilbertsville, PA

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:33 pm

i want a smasung too!
sweatshopking
Gerbil Elite
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:37 am

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:35 pm

Corrado wrote:I have a 42" Samsung 720p plasma that I got for $499 back in August of 2010. Its been AWESOME. Plasma > LCD in my book.



it depends on what your room is like, and what you're concerned with.
Plasma has better contrast, but the picture isn't as bright, so it's better for darker rooms, where the high contrast ratio can really shine. They also have much higher refresh rates. typically 600hz, opposed to 60/120/240 on new lcd's. LCD's generally do better in brighter rooms, and consume WAY less power. A 40" plasma that's on for 4 hours a day will generally be the highest consuming piece of electronics in your house. MORE THAN YOUR FRIDGE.

Both provide good quality images now. It's a matter of taste.
sweatshopking
Gerbil Elite
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:37 am

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:00 pm

According to Samsung's own specs that screen has a resolution of 1024x768. Which just seems... wrong. But if that's right, it certainly explains why it's so cheap (and why I would never buy it). Assuming those specs are in error, and it's actually a proper 720 panel, well... 720 is no longer very popular now that 1080 screens don't cost that much more. Not that you're going to see much difference at 40" but it does matter for menus and such if you're using it with other devices (especially HTPC). Anyway, 40" was always pretty much the bottom of the range for plasma and as LCDs have moved up plasmas have retreated into the larger screen sizes so you're essentially getting the loser's discount (you're probably getting that twice, since Samsung was never very big in plasmas vs say Panasonic and I'd bet that particular model is at the end of its life). FWIW, what looks to be the equivalent US model costs even less on this side of the pond, so it's not like that price is completely out of line (though maybe flatscreen prices are enormously higher in the UK in general?).
UberGerbil
Gerbil Khan
 
Posts: 9979
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:15 pm

The power usage is often comparable the last few gens (it was a problem for early plasmas). Looking at energystar.gov will probably give you a better idea of actual power usage than looking at manufacturer specs, since they list max power generally, which is about as useful as saying a 1000 watt power supply will always draw 1000 watts.

LCDs (especially the higher-end ones) have gotten better, but they're still the TNs of the TV world :P

UberGerbil wrote:According to Samsung's own specs that screen has a resolution of 1024x768. Which just seems... wrong.


That's pretty standard (non-square pixels) for plasmas in that size range.
Intel 2500K & Scythe Mugen2 | ASRock H67M-GE | 8GB DDR3 | Boot drive: OCZ Vertex 3
TV tuner: Aver HDDuet | Xonar DG | Fractal Design R4 | Rosewill Capstone 450M
insulin_junkie72
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: WI, USA

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:31 pm

Smasung 42" - why so misspell?
eternalmatt
Gerbil
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:56 am

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:01 pm

Am I the only one who thought back to the Simpsons?
Sorny, and Magnetbox?
MaxTheLimit
Gerbil Jedi
 
Posts: 1808
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Smasung 42" - why so cheap?

Postposted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:46 pm

insulin_junkie72 wrote:
LCDs (especially the higher-end ones) have gotten better, but they're still the TNs of the TV world :P



i'D TAKE A LCD OVER A PLASMA ANYDAY. cAUSE i'VE GOT KIDS, AND THEY ALWAYS OPEN BLINDS, AND STUFF'S ALWAYS GOING ON. iF I WAS SINGLE, AND HAD A ROOM just FOR TV, i'D GO PLASMA, BUT AS A FAMILY MAN, iT'S LCD, ALL THE WAY.
sweatshopking
Gerbil Elite
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:37 am


Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest