Product comparison · 2 wireless presenters

Philips Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930 vs Targus AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black

Add a product
  • 4specifications compared
  • 3differ
  • 1identical
  • 34known for one product only

Key differences

The Philips Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930 has 150 g more weight than the Targus AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black (220 g vs 70 g). Product colour: Silver on the Philips Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930, Black on the Targus AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black. Battery type: AA on the Philips Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930, AAA on the Targus AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black.

  • Product colour
    • Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930:Silver
    • AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black:Black
  • Battery type
    • Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930:AA
    • AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black:AAA
  • Weight
    • Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930:220 g
    • AMP09 wireless presenter RF Black:70 g

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of Home Theatre Control Panel SBCRU930, AMP09
38 specifications
Performanceidentical
Wireless technologyKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceRF
Frequency bandKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source2.4 GHz
Connector(s)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceUSB
Wireless receiver interfaceKnown for oneUSBUnknown — not stated by the source
Wireless rangeKnown for one10 mUnknown — not stated by the source
Features1 differ
Product colourDiffersSilverBlack
Plug and PlayKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
CompatibilityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceMac, PC
CertificationKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceCE
Power1 differ
Battery typeDiffersAAAAA
Number of batteries supportedKnown for one3Unknown — not stated by the source
System requirementsidentical
Mac compatibilityKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
USB requiredKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceYes
Compatible operating systemsKnown for oneWindows 98SE/2000/MEUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions1 differ
WidthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source25 mm
DepthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source38 mm
HeightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source120 mm
WeightDiffers220 g70 g
Packaging dataidentical
Package widthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source70 mm
Package depthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source220 mm
Package heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source155 mm
Package weightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source140 g
Logistics dataidentical
Shipping (inner) case net weightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source760 g
Products per palletKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source480 pc(s)
Master (outer) case widthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source250 mm
Master (outer) case lengthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source415 mm
Master (outer) case heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source360 mm
Master (outer) case gross weightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source3.53 kg
Products per master (outer) caseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source16 pc(s)
Shipping (inner) case widthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source19.8 cm
Shipping (inner) case lengthKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source22.8 cm
Shipping (inner) case heightKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source17 cm
Products per shipping (inner) caseKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source4 pc(s)
Other featuresidentical
Display diagonalKnown for one8.13 cm (3.2")Unknown — not stated by the source
Display resolutionKnown for one160 x 100 pixelsUnknown — not stated by the source
Dimensions (WxDxH)Known for one74 x 177 x 33 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Operating temperature (T-T)Known for one5 - 45 °CUnknown — not stated by the source

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 wireless presenter comparisons

All wireless presenter comparisons