Samsung recently announced the prices for its high-end S95C and mid-range S90C OLED TVs, following their announcement in January. The S90C ones will be available in 55-inch, 65-inch, and 77-inch sizes with a starting price of $1,899, which happens to be the same as LG’s C3 OLED TVs. The pricing strategy is likely a calculated move by “Sammy” to compete with LG’s highly regarded OLED TV.
Talking about the Samsung S95C OLEDs, we will also be available them available in three sizes (55”, 65”, 77”) but their pricing starts at $2,499 instead (the exact same price as the high-end 55-inch LG G3 OLEDs).
What sets the S90C and S95C apart?
The pricing difference between the Samsung S90C and S95C models varies by $600 for the 55-inch models and $900 for the 77-inch models. But here is what sets the two TVs apart:
- The Samsung S95C comes with the OneConnect Box, which helps to hide cables better (it’s worth noting that this feature is not included with the S90C, despite its high price tag).
- The S95C is approximately 20% brighter than the S90C. When tested by experts, the S95C’s peak brightness in Filmmaker Mode was measured at around 2320 nits in a 10% window. So, it’s reasonable to assume that the S90C would produce approximately 1900 nits in Filmmaker Mode (and possibly more in Standard mode).
- The Samsung S95C has a larger built-in sound system, with a 70W 4.2.2 channel setup that includes top speakers; the S90C, on the other hand, has a 40W 2.1 system. This means that there should be a noticeable difference in sound quality between the two TVs.
Pricing for the Samsung S95C and S90C OLED TVs
- 77″ Samsung S95C OLED: $4,499
- 65” Samsung S95C OLED: $3,299
- 55” Samsung S95C OLED: $2,499
- 77″ Samsung S90C OLED: $3,599
- 65” Samsung S90C OLED: TBA
- 55” Samsung S90C OLED: $1,899
It’s difficult to determine if the upgrade to the S95C is worth it until both TVs are tested side by side. However, this breakdown should provide a clear understanding of the differences between the two QD-OLED models. Which one will you be getting?
. Read more about