Barco XT1.5-E vs Samsung IF015H

1.5 mm against 1.5 mm · specifications from both manufacturers' datasheets

Side-by-side specifications, then the same wall built from each tile — so the comparison is in panels, kilograms, circuits and data runs rather than in marketing copy.

Whole cabinets rarely hit an identical size, so each wall is the closest build to a real video format (16:9 or 16:10) near 8 m wide for that tile — 7.93 × 4.46 m and 7.68 × 4.32 m respectively.

What the numbers say

• Samsung IF015H resolves finer: 444,444 pixels per square metre against 396,385 for Barco XT1.5-E, 12% more. On a 8 m wide wall that is 5,120 px across versus 4,992 px.
• Samsung IF015H is the lighter rig: 22 kg/m² against 36 kg/m². Across this wall that is 491 kg of difference — 942 kg versus 1,433 kg, which moves point loads and can change the hoist call.
• Samsung IF015H draws more: 772 W/m² against 650 W/m² at full white. For this wall that is 23 kW versus 25.6 kW, and 13 versus 16 circuits at a 16 A/230 V supply with an 80% derate.
• Data is lighter on Samsung IF015H: 32 runs against 39, at 6 and 4 panels per port respectively (60 Hz, 8-bit, ports loaded to 80%). Fewer runs means fewer home runs to pull and fewer processor ports to find.
• Different cabinet formats: 609.92 × 343.08 mm against 480 × 540 mm, so 169 tiles versus 128 for the same wall. Fewer, larger cabinets build faster; smaller ones give finer control over wall dimensions and are easier to handle alone.
• Estimated truck space: 6 m for Samsung IF015H against 7.5 m for the other, including spares, cases and cabling.

Full specifications

• Barco XT1.5-E — specs and calculator
• Samsung IF015H — specs and calculator
• All Barco panels
• All Samsung panels

Related comparisons

• Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-FE153
• Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-D151
• Samsung IF015H vs Sharp LD-EC151
• Barco XT1.5-E vs Sharp LD-FE153
• Barco XT1.5-E vs Sharp LD-D151
• Barco XT1.5-E vs Sharp LD-EC151