Pros & Cons: 2 1000W vs 3 600W

[keylime]

Well, the title says it all. I'm starting new (have some experience) and would like your opinions of what I should get for flowering only...

2 1000W HPS OR
3 600W HPS

Time of flowering : I guess what I'm asking would it take longer to flower using the 600 vs the 1000?

If I use 4ft by 4ft for the 1000W, what dimensions would you recomend for the 600?

 

[freeradical]

600W hps emits 150 lpw (lumen per watt) compared to 1000W hps emitting 140 lpw, so they are more energy efficient right off the bat. In addition, having plants closer to your lights decrease lost overall intensity. Having 3 lights compared to 2 gives you a more even distribution of light as well. 3 600Ws are a hands down way to go over 2 1000Ws, if you have the cash.

 

[Quazi]

Your flowering time is not really going to change between the two.

1000W = 4x4
600W = 3x3

1000W = 140,000 lumens
600W = 90,000 lumens

1000W = 140 lumens per watt
600W = 150 lumens per watt

2x1000W = 280,000 lumens
3x600W = 270,000 lumens

So, you've got 2,000W to produce 280,000 lumens. Or, you've got 1,800W to produce 270,000 lumens. That's 10% more power usage for 9.6% lumen increase.

However, there are three other factors to consider.

1) With 3x600W, you can have areas of overlap where plants where be getting additional lumens.

2) With 3x600W, you can get the lamps quite a bit closer, also increasing the amount of energy actually reaching the plants.

3) With 2x1000W, you will get better penetration so canopy maintenance isn't as much of a concern.

As far as space is concerned:
2x1000W means you can work in a 4ftx8ft or 8ftx4ft area.
3x600W means you can work in a 3ftx9ft or 9ftx3ft area. However, with some overlap on the coverage area, you can squeeze down the dimensions a bit.



Good luck in your travels!

-Q

 

[badugi]

I think the performance 2 x 1000w vs 3 x 600w (2k vs 1.8k, but 1.8k having more points of light) and a 1 x 600w vs 1 x 1000w has been quite widely & heavily discussed; however, one real-world, practical, and logistical pros & cons of 1000w vs 600w that I see, yet isn't discussed much, is the lower initial cost of equipment investment.

In most 2 x 1000w application, it's going to cost you roughly 2 ballasts, 2 bulbs, and 2 reflectors. In most 3 x 600w application, it's going to cost you roughly 3 ballasts, 3 bulbs (600w bulbs typically costs more than 1000w bulbs), and 3 reflectors... roughly a 50% equipment increase just on lighting alone. There are other small, hidden, "between the lines" costs as well, but I thought this was one worth mentioning.

(I'm using the equivalent of 2 x 1000w on movers to get the best of all worlds. See stoney419's thread for more info.)

 

[Greyskull]

Quazi your posts are generally very informative with a cool neutrality that leaves room for the reader to figure it out themselves without just going "X IS BETTER THAN Y BITCHES". Its nice. : )

People seem to forget that 1000's can be aircooled rather efficiently, too, and in the right environment (with AC, oscillating fans...) you can get them lights right at the tops pumping out MEGA POWER. My 1ks are only 12" above the top of the canopy from the end of the stretch (mid week 4) to the end of the cycle... thats when a plant/crop finishes at 32" - I've had plants finish as close as 7 inches without any ill effects (light burn).... only big dense colas & nuggs all up and down the plants. I've always abided by the creed that if you can take the heat then burn the 1ks.

I have seen many many many killer crops with 600s. I've also seen in a good friends room 600's light bleach MTF at 3" distance. He had other problems in his room (environment control) so maybe not all the light's fault, but it is what it is, I saw what I saw.

 

[Quazi]

Thanks, greyskull!

one real-world, practical, and logistical pros & cons of 1000w vs 600w that I see, yet isn't discussed much, is the lower initial cost of equipment investment.

In most 2 x 1000w application, it's going to cost you roughly 2 ballasts, 2 bulbs, and 2 reflectors. In most 3 x 600w application, it's going to cost you roughly 3 ballasts, 3 bulbs (600w bulbs typically costs more than 1000w bulbs), and 3 reflectors... roughly a 50% equipment increase just on lighting alone. There are other small, hidden, "between the lines" costs as well, but I thought this was one worth mentioning.

That is definitely worth mentioning.

Let's take a look at it from a very popular source.

If we're looking at kits, we're looking at a wing-reflector, remote ballast, and lamp. While there are tons of other variables, I'm going to use these three main components to consider costs.

A 600W setup containing all of this can be had for $199.95 for a total of $599.85.

A 1000W setup containing all of this (same brands) can be had for $313.95 for a total of $627.90.

Now, it's worth mentioning the difference between the lamps. 600W lamps are generally more expensive than 1000W lamps because of the technology behind them. However, 600W lamps also have around 20% more life than 1000W lamps (20k compared to 24k) because of technology.

Now, shipping is obviously going to be more with three units. However 1000W equipment is larger and will weigh more.

So, the 2x1000W is more to purchase, and operate, however shipping may be less and the lamps will be less expensive to replace at the cost of having to replace them more often.

-Q

 

[badugi]

Without even looking at your other posts and signature, I can tell that you're a very small grower (which is very cool) and don't have real-life experience as an operator of a larger grow setup.

If you want to limit yourself to a very specific ballast & reflector set to offset the equipment expenditures, you're really going about it the wrong way and looking to misprove a point than to properly illustrate one. Short of digitals, 1000w ballasts really aren't any more expensive than a 600w or a 400w. 1000w equipment isn't much larger and don't necessarily weigh much more.

The price of a 600w bulb isn't because of the technology behind them, it's because of supply / demand. Although clearly aware of the fact that more initial lumens and longer rated lifetime probably means slower gradual loss in intensity and all that, I don't think real-life growers at this scale look at the bulb's expected life that way, and more in terms of how it fits the bill based on the crop's timing and cycles (paydays).

And finally, even when all is said and done, even if 1.8k is proven to outyield 2k (not universally true), and even if the equipment investment cost is offset by output, real-world situations (including equipment setup, time, availability, growing style, grower preference, scenarios, budgets, and so on) dictates how to design & build a room for me.

When running around throwing up room after room, I'm not investing in 600w's. I know there are people out there that swear by them and have results to show, but you're not going to sell me.

Thanks, greyskull!

That is definitely worth mentioning.

Let's take a look at it from a very popular source.

If we're looking at kits, we're looking at a wing-reflector, remote ballast, and lamp. While there are tons of other variables, I'm going to use these three main components to consider costs.

A 600W setup containing all of this can be had for $199.95 for a total of $599.85.

A 1000W setup containing all of this (same brands) can be had for $313.95 for a total of $627.90.

Now, it's worth mentioning the difference between the lamps. 600W lamps are generally more expensive than 1000W lamps because of the technology behind them. However, 600W lamps also have around %20 more life than 1000W lamps (20k compared to 24k) because of technology.

Now, shipping is obviously going to be more with three units. However 1000W equipment is larger and will weigh more.

So, the 2x1000W is more to purchase, and operate, however shipping may be less and the lamps will be less expensive to replace at the cost of having to replace them more often.

-Q

 

[Greyskull]

here's another way to look at it....
Grow lights are like guitar amps. VERY VERY SIMILIAR. Check this out...

No one really needs a 100w non-master volume Marshall plexi completely dimed and plugged into a full stack (2 4x12s) to get a good distortion.... you can easily use a low wattage 25w amp with a single 12" speaker with a boost/overdrive/distortion box and keep the volume at lower levels... and live so you don't blow the people away with the sound simply set a mic in front of the amp and run that the PA...

NOW, IMAGINE TOOL OR AC/DC OR METALLICA OR JIMMY PAGE OR SRV OR JIMI HENDRIX OR SLAYER OR insert band w/balls here "rocking the arena" with their guitarists rocking 25w amps just loud enough to get a good distortion tone o the board (PA). Might sound great thru the PA... But how does it FEEL right in front of the stage? A little light maybe... a little fluffy? A little "where's the power of live music?" Those big roaring stacks create a dense wall of sound that cuts thru your body and skakes your soul. They help make that experience wha it is.
WHO WOULDN'T WANT TO NOT BLOW PEOPLE AWAY WITH THE SOUND - NOT ME!

I think you can achieve greater density in your buds using 1ks is what I am trying to say. Because of the power. I don't know of any scientific study to back it up, nor have I seen a controlled 600 v 1000 shootout. I'd sure like to see one...

nehoo thats how I am looking at things.... wierd I know.

edit: btw thats why I HATE the older lines of Line 6 amps... they never could cut thru in a live sitch... the new ones with the old school tube power amps are way more like it! Tube powered guitar amps are living proof that modern efficiency & state of the art does not always equal top quality.

 

[Quazi]

Without even looking at your other posts and signature, I can tell that you're a very small grower (which is very cool) and don't have real-life experience as an operator of a larger grow setup.

If you want to limit yourself to a very specific ballast & reflector set to offset the equipment expenditures, you're really going about it the wrong way and looking to misprove a point than to properly illustrate one. Short of digitals, 1000w ballasts really aren't any more expensive than a 600w or a 400w. 1000w equipment isn't much larger and don't necessarily weigh much more.

The price of a 600w bulb isn't because of the technology behind them, it's because of supply / demand. Although clearly aware of the fact that more initial lumens and longer rated lifetime probably means slower gradual loss in intensity and all that, I don't think real-life growers at this scale look at the bulb's expected life that way, and more in terms of how it fits the bill based on the crop's timing and cycles (paydays).

And finally, even when all is said and done, even if 1.8k is proven to outyield 2k (not universally true), and even if the equipment investment cost is offset by output, real-world situations (including equipment setup, time, availability, growing style, grower preference, scenarios, budgets, and so on) dictates how to design & build a room for me.

When running around throwing up room after room, I'm not investing in 600w's. I know there are people out there that swear by them and have results to show, but you're not going to sell me.

I'm not really sure it's fair to make that assumption as I do have experience with different kinds of wattage and lamps outside of just visiting them.

I am a micro grower for my personal use. But, I have assisted others in their setups and have worked on a couple of grows with partners. This has included analyzing costs for space and helping with orders for equipment.

In this experience I have worked with 1,800 (3x600W). I have also worked with a 400W MH grow. I've also helped with a 2x150W grow. I have also worked with (though never grew in) a 3x1000W grow. I've also grown under fluoros for gosh sake. I've also helped setup some MH/HPS combination stuff. Again: this is not to say that I grow in these conditions, because I don't. Also, I'm not saying that this experience makes me an expert with those kinds of grows either. Granted, some of this is more recent experience than others, but I've done a bit more than just micro-growing. There's some other stuff in there too, but it really doesn't matter that much anyway because I was speaking about the cost in terms of comparing two systems that are close to identical to help illustrate the possible differences when it comes to price. I didn't state that it was an expert opinion but frankly, I didn't think that simple price data necessarily warranted expertise.

In my experience (however little it may be compared to yours, or anyone's): 1000W setups are larger. The equipment is a bit bigger. Does that mean it's going to be true for all equipment? Obviously not. That's just my own experience.

In regards to the lamps: you could be right about the prices of supply and demand I guess but it is safe to say there's more technology in the 600W.

Also, I understand that the hourly lamp life is not necessarily a consideration. I was just adding the information because, well, it's helpful in describing the difference between the two because the 600W is different.

Also, if one is looking to offset the cost of equipment expenditure by going with specific equipment, that's one's personal choice. Some people can get by just fine with inexpensive equipment choices and some DIY. Others have had terrible experience with lesser products and, therefore, prefer to spend more on the equipment. Others still, have done their own research and come to their own conclusions to make their equipment decisions. Again though: I think it's a matter of personal choice and really comes down to the budget.

I'm not trying to say one is necessarily better than the other or prove anyone right or wrong. I was just saying that you made a good point when it comes to price and it deserved to be looked at from an objective view, so... I did. I wasn't trying to sell you on anything because you didn't post this thread looking for advice. I wasn't trying to sell the author of this thread on anything either. I was just trying to provide some info for them so they could make up their mind.

-Q

 

[badugi]

I've had excellent results with both "expensive" pre-made equipment as well as numerous DIY projects (I've been nominated for the ICMag MacGuyver award ) where appropriate. I choose the route I take based, again, on many variables but in the long run the "expensive" equipment is cheaper to purchase / build / install / operate / resell / invest in... although it's oftentimes hard to see the value until a few cycles in, when the realization is clear that the extra upfront $$ pays you back repeatedly.

(I've grown with 250w, 400w, 600w, and 1000w HID lamps... as well as T5, T8, T12 and compact fluorescent lamps.)

 

[keylime]

Well, when I saw the first 3 replies, I said to myself, I guess I will need to go to 600 lights (I have 1000Ws now.) But then when I read on this morning, it seems the answer is more complicated.

I will be re-doing and re-locating my grow in a month or two and thought I'd get something with the digital ballasts, and thought maybe I should go with the 600s rather than stay with the 1000w.

It seems the main difference is my area will change for 4x8ft (with 2 1000s) to 3x9 with 3 600s. What I'm reading thats the main difference?

keylime

 

[dreaded]

Hello keylime, my , i'm a personal grower, have been growing awhile, & i'm all about saving money. If i already had 2-1000 watt setups, i wouldn't invest in 3-600 watts, i'd stick with what i have.
I'd look at it as, what can i do to improve what i have, if your current setup isn't vented, i'd invest in venting it to get the lights closer.
Don't get me wrong, do what you want to do, it's your money, but you already have it, use what you have & add to it to improve it.

 

[Haps]

I would like to try a 600, but every time I look at it, the 1K is always cheaper, the bulbs are cheaper, and I am a cheap mofo. I use 2K, one blue, one yellow on my 5 x 8 rig, and my corners are not getting enough light. This run, I changed my lights, dropped one row of buckets and will be doing 5.5 x 6.5 this run to see if it works better. I considered going to 1K blue plus 2 yellow 6's, but I just can not give up the penetration, but might try it in the future.

My biggest challenge is to be effective with the lights I have, and that means changing bulbs every second crop, and I am considering changing them every crop. We all know there is a small drop off after a few months, well, I want that, it makes a difference to me. Fifty bucks to change my cheap ass bulbs = at least a grand in extra yield, that is my light plan, after trying many others.
H

 

[tokinafatty024]

1000watt lamps have always out produced my 600watt lamps.

I personally am in the habbit to place 2x 1000watt lamps and 1x 600watt in a row with the 600watt in the middle. Although there is no scientific reason for this, its merely the way the hoods are designed. Always had better results with the ones under 1000watt.

 

[BlindDate]

Keylime......You cannot use 3 x 600s on a 4x8 table because a 600 cannot throw a light footprint 4 feet wide at any height that you could ever expect to get decent buds from. Impossible.

Even 2 x 1000 is at the outer limits for coverage. A 4 X 8 table means that your grow area is going to be at least 6" overhang. That means 5 x 9 which is 45 square feet. 2000 watts is only 44 watts per sq/ft, well under the minimum 50 for decent bud (70-100 is more like it).

You need 3 x 1000 or 6 x 600 for that size area else get ready to trim popcorn.

 

[Leon Sanders]

I love your post, and totally agree (I see the point of 6's though for some people, and thouies for others.

I'll tell you this, it some good and bad news. Years ago (I'm almost 25, so it's relative) but say 8 years ago I picked up a Traynor yba-3 and through a mesa 2x15 was able to cut through two stacks and one ferocious drummer in a metal setting. With my 125 clean watt (200 total watts I believe) I was able to cut through PERFECTLY in a small room setting (our practice space, we only jammed) to the point where they had me turn down. Awesome. Especially when plenty of bassists use 600-1000K in SS amps and still get lost in the mix, while sounding like butthole.

the bad news is that I have no cab of my own, and keep forgetting to bring the head from my parents house, where it sits in a closet. Damn thing is heavy as hell, but truly an awesome power device. My favorite of all power devices, really, and I never get to use it. Only imagine it's natural fuzziness, it's room shaking boom. Traynor amps, buy them. Do research. They're cheap for no good reason.

here's another way to look at it....
Grow lights are like guitar amps. VERY VERY SIMILIAR. Check this out...

No one really needs a 100w non-master volume Marshall plexi completely dimed and plugged into a full stack (2 4x12s) to get a good distortion.... you can easily use a low wattage 25w amp with a single 12" speaker with a boost/overdrive/distortion box and keep the volume at lower levels... and live so you don't blow the people away with the sound simply set a mic in front of the amp and run that the PA...

NOW, IMAGINE TOOL OR AC/DC OR METALLICA OR JIMMY PAGE OR SRV OR JIMI HENDRIX OR SLAYER OR insert band w/balls here "rocking the arena" with their guitarists rocking 25w amps just loud enough to get a good distortion tone o the board (PA). Might sound great thru the PA... But how does it FEEL right in front of the stage? A little light maybe... a little fluffy? A little "where's the power of live music?" Those big roaring stacks create a dense wall of sound that cuts thru your body and skakes your soul. They help make that experience wha it is.
WHO WOULDN'T WANT TO NOT BLOW PEOPLE AWAY WITH THE SOUND - NOT ME!

I think you can achieve greater density in your buds using 1ks is what I am trying to say. Because of the power. I don't know of any scientific study to back it up, nor have I seen a controlled 600 v 1000 shootout. I'd sure like to see one...

nehoo thats how I am looking at things.... wierd I know.

edit: btw thats why I HATE the older lines of Line 6 amps... they never could cut thru in a live sitch... the new ones with the old school tube power amps are way more like it! Tube powered guitar amps are living proof that modern efficiency & state of the art does not always equal top quality.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

they are too differnt types of lights, i dont understand why this is such a debated subject. there are too many variables. each combination of lights(2x1000, 3x600) will out do the other in an enviroment better suited for itself.

 

[badugi]

I'm with Avon Barksdale. For now I'm sold on 1000w's on movers.

 

[doubledotdank]

they say that 600's are more effecient and produce less heat. Seems that they are more expensive than 1000's initially. The biggest, chunkiest buds i have seen, came from 1000's every time.

 

[darthvapor]

Only thing that sucks about 1000watts is they ballast and wires inside sometimes catch on fire. so its good to check them after every run. Ive never had any problems with the 600 or 400 watters. Ive had a few 1000 melt wires but never catch on fire.