Samsung maxes out TV energy ratings

About The Author

CNET Editor

Ty is a journalist with 15 years experience in writing for IT and entertainment publications. He is in charge of the home theatre category for CNET Australia and is also a PC enthusiast. He likes indie music and plays several instruments. Twitter: @tpendlebury

Samsung has announced that its new 6 and 7 series LCD televisions have achieved a minimum of five stars out of six under the new Energy Rating Scheme — beating Sony's "green" television.

The 7 series "LED TV" achieved the highest ratings with the 55-inch UA55B7100 (AU$5799) achieving a maximum of six stars. Meanwhile, the 40-inch UA40B7100 (AU$3899) reached a five-star rating, and the 46-inch UA46B7100 a 5.5-star rating.

Sony's much-hyped WE series with a HCFL backlight, presence sensor, and hard "on/off" switch only managed 4.5 stars.

In October 2009, Energy Star ratings will be compulsory on all televisions, and appliances that exceed the current six stars will be allowed to be rated to a maximum of 10.

"Samsung is extremely proud to be playing a lead role in an industry which is increasingly conscious of energy consumption levels and environmental impacts of raw materials", said Mark Leathan, head of marketing, Consumer Electronics, Samsung Electronics Australia.

"The beauty of the Samsung LED TV range is that picture quality, brightness and connectivity are in no way compromised despite remarkable levels of energy efficiency. Samsung LED TVs use up to 40 per cent less power than an equivalent-sized LCD TV and we're delighted that our customers will see a financial saving as a result", he said.

The Samsung series 6 and 7 televisions are available now. Look out for a full review of the UA40B7100 on CNET Australia very soon.

Samsung's 55-inch TV has achieved a maximum six-star rating. (Credit: Samsung)

Previous Story

Sony Bravia KDL40E4500

TVs
Next Story

Samsung UA55B7000



Add Your Comment 11


Post comment as
 

FruitCake posted a comment   

I still have a 51cm CRT tv.
Looking at buying one of the Samsung LED 40" tv's.

I never watch movies, do not have Foxtel and do not have a DVD player. Just watch news and Top Gear.

Probably the 6000 series will do, as I do not have wireless internet either.

Prices have dropped recently, and especially since Harvey Normal lost the exclusive deal.

 

Harry posted a comment   

Surely if energy savings are your priority you'd buy a smaller set than these monsters and sit a bit closer.

 

Miser posted a comment   

I was thinking of buying an LED type but the regular LCD tv is less then half the price and over the life of the tv I wouldn't come close to the savings of buying a LCD set instead of LED. So help me, what info can you give me to make me choose a LED tv?

 

mob posted a comment   

cnet's articles are way too much biased positively towards samsung. does everyone REALLY think that samsung tvs look as good as sony?

 

matt posted a comment   

We'll to Jonathan's comments. LED is the same as LCD just that it uses LED lights to light up the screen which use much less energy, so u can compare LCD and led, using LED's is a good step forward

 

Jonathan posted a comment   

Good write-up however seems a little bias towards Samsung, how can you compare TV’s that are in a different class (LCD and LED) not to mention the huge price range difference as well... compare apples with apples and it seems the Sony is a better buy at the moment.

 

cuckoo posted a comment   

Very i n t e r e s t i n g.

 

Yo Mumma posted a comment   

"Look out for a full review of the UA40B7100 on CNET Australia very soon."

year really helpful cnet, rewiew a harvey norman exclusive tv, and ignore the UA6000 and UA8000!!! I didn't think Harvey's needed any extra advertising for free

 

tiger posted a comment   

Yeah and you will get Aldi picture quality too...that will never catch-up to a Samsung...you get what you pay for!

 

Nickname posted a comment   

As I can get a 100MHZ, 42 inch LCD from Aldi for under $1000, sadly it would take a long time to save money if I replaced it with a $4000+ "energy saving" TV.


Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products