Philips LCD Monitors manual Calculating TCO costs of LCD monitors, Specifications overview

White Paper October 2005 When LCD Monitors can reduce TCO 12

6. Calculating TCO costs of LCD monitors

A computation of the direct and indirect costs, compiled on an annual basis over a period of three to five years, provides a total cost of ownership figure. The results can be quite telling. This section compares the costs of owning 500 Philips 17” LCD monitors (model 170B) with those of 500 industry-average displays with the same size and comparable display performance specifications.

6.1 Specifications overview

The table shown below provides an overview of the key specifications that affect the total cost of ownership. It is assumed that both monitor types are within the same price range and that the other-brand vendor, like Philips, is a well known company with a sound financial position and a long-term strategy within the LCD displays market.

	Philips 170B	Industry average
Panel size and resolution	17” 1280x1024	17” 1280x1024
Acquisition phase
Monitor price (ex. VAT)	EUR 250	EUR 250
Asset management user licence (ex. VAT)	EUR 4	n.a.
Deployment phase
Built-in power supply	Yes	50% no
Cable management	Yes	50% no
Auto self-adjust and diagnosis	Yes	Yes
Remote asset tagging	SmartManage	No
Remote monitor configuration	SmartManage	No
Operation phase
Standard warranty duration	3 years	2,5 years
48-hour on-site single swap	Yes	Yes
Pixel policy	Perfect panel	Class 2 (up to 3 dead
	(zero dead pixels)	pixels)
MTBF	50,000 hours	50,000 hours
Power consumption	32 W	45 W
Standby power consumption	3 W	5 W
Remote power management	SmartManage	No
Built-in Kensington lock	Yes	50% no
Central alarm after cable pull-out	SmartManage	No
Monitor lock after cable pull-out	SmartManage	No
Remote life-cycle management	SmartManage	No
Retirement phase
Remote asset tracking	SmartManage	No
Remote operating hours registration	SmartManage	No
Monitor weight	4.8kg	6.0kg
RoHS compliance	Yes	50% not yet

Table 1: Key specifications of Philips 17” monitors compared with industry average