Product comparison · 2 monitors

Philips 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor vs Philips 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor

Add a product
  • 81specifications compared
  • 29differ
  • 52identical
  • 9known for one product only

Key differences

The Philips 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor has 50 cd/m² more display brightness (typical) than the Philips 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor (300 cd/m² vs 250 cd/m²). The Philips 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor has 1.5 ms more response time than the Philips 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor (6.5 ms vs 5 ms). The Philips 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor has 2,000 :1 more contrast ratio (typical) than the Philips 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor (3000:1 vs 1000:1). Only the Philips 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor has DVI port. Only the Philips 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor has VESA mounting.

  • Display diagonal
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:59.9 cm (23.6")
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:71.1 cm (28")
  • Display technology
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:LCD
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:LED
  • Panel type
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:TFT
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:MVA
  • Display brightness (typical)
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:250 cd/m²
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:300 cd/m²
  • Response time
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:5 ms
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:6.5 ms
  • Contrast ratio (typical)
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:1000:1
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:3000:1
  • Viewing angle, horizontal
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:170°
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:176°
  • Viewing angle, vertical
    • 247E6BDAD/69 computer monitor:160°
    • 284E5QHAD/96 computer monitor:176°

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of 247E6BDAD/69, 284E5QHAD/96
90 specifications
Display11 differ
Display diagonalDiffers59.9 cm (23.6")71.1 cm (28")
Display technologyDiffersLCDLED
Panel typeDiffersTFTMVA
Display brightness (typical)Differs250 cd/m²300 cd/m²
Response timeDiffers5 ms6.5 ms
Contrast ratio (typical)Differs1000:13000:1
Viewing angle, horizontalDiffers170°176°
Viewing angle, verticalDiffers160°176°
SmartResponseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source4 ms
Pixel pitchDiffers0.2715 x 0.2715 mm0.32 x 0.32 mm
Viewable size, horizontalDiffers52.1 cm62 cm
Viewable size, verticalDiffers29.3 cm34.9 cm
Sync-on-green (SOG)Known for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Multimedia1 differ
RMS rated powerDiffers6 W14 W
Ports & interfaces2 differ
DVI portDiffersYesNo
HDMI ports quantityDiffers12
Headphone outputsKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source1
DVI-D ports quantityKnown for one1Unknown — not stated by the source
Headphone outKnown for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Ergonomics1 differ
VESA mountingDiffersNoYes
Panel mounting interfaceKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source100 x 100 mm
On Screen Display (OSD)Known for oneYesUnknown — not stated by the source
Power1 differ
Power consumption (typical)Differs17.44 W33 W
Annual energy consumptionKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source48 kWh
Weight & dimensions8 differ
Width (with stand)Differs561 mm663 mm
Depth (with stand)Differs212 mm237 mm
Height (with stand)Differs429 mm485 mm
Weight (with stand)Differs3.65 kg4.73 kg
Width (without stand)Differs561 mm663 mm
Depth (without stand)Differs43 mm54 mm
Height (without stand)Differs347 mm390 mm
Weight (without stand)Differs3.27 kg4.21 kg
Packaging data4 differ
Package widthDiffers598 mm711 mm
Package depthDiffers100 mm116 mm
Package heightDiffers490 mm542 mm
Package weightDiffers4.9 kg6.6 kg
Other features1 differ
Energy efficiency class (legacy scale)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceB
CertificationDiffersRoHS, BSMI, CE Mark, cETLus, FCC B, GOST, PSB, SASO, SEMKO, TCO 6.0, TUV/ISO9241-307, WEEE, SGS CertRoHS, BSMI, CE, cETLus, FCC B, GOST, SASO, SEMKO, TCO 6.0, TUV/ISO9241-307, WEEE

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More monitor comparisons

All monitor comparisons