Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
VS
The verdict
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 leads on the differences that matter
The largest is rated power: 90 W more power. 8 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 11 differencesHow alike are they
8
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
11 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Rated power
645 Wp
735 Wp
90 W more power
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
0.030 %/°C better in heat
Weight
32.0 kg
38.0 kg
6.0 kg lighter
Short-circuit current
16.50 A
18.72 A
2.22 A apart
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Module efficiency
23.90 %
23.70 %
0.20 pp more efficient
Annual degradation
0.35 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
0.05 %/yr slower
Current at max power
15.73 A
17.75 A
2.02 A apart
Cell count
264
132
132 cells apart
Weight per kWp
49.6 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
2.1 kg/kWp lighter
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
02
What it means on a roof
Thirty years of production
Each panel's own declared degradation curve, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
21,809 kWh
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
24,661 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,852 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
645 W
735 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
95.7% of rated power
620 W
703 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
91.3% of rated power
595 W
671 W
Hot roof
70 °C
87.0% of rated power
570 W
639 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
645 Wp
735 Wp
+90 W for CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735
Module efficiency
23.90 %
23.70 %
+0.20 pp for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
Power density
238.8 Wp/m²
236.6 Wp/m²
Effectively the same
Open-circuit voltage
48.83 V
49.77 V
Effectively the same
Voltage at max power
41.02 V
41.41 V
Effectively the same
Short-circuit current
16.50 A
18.72 A
2.22 A apart
Current at max power
15.73 A
17.75 A
2.02 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.260 %/°C
-0.290 %/°C
+0.030 %/°C for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
Mechanical
Dimensions
2382x1134x30 mm
2384x1303x33 mm
2382x1134x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area
2.701 m²
3.106 m²
0.405 m² apart
Weight
32.0 kg
38.0 kg
-6.0 kg for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
Weight per kWp
49.6 kg/kWp
51.7 kg/kWp
-2.1 kg/kWp for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
15 yrs
15 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.35 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
-0.05 %/yr for CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645
Technology
Cell technology
TOPCon
TOPCon
Same
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
264
132
132 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#351
vs
#517
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 leads by 166 places
Power density
#356
vs
#582
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 leads by 226 places
Heat behaviour
#511
vs
#2,165
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 leads by 1,654 places
Weight
#3,158
vs
#5,081
CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 leads by 1,923 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#1,068
vs
#160
CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 leads by 908 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-670
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-665
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-660
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-655
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 vs Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-650
One difference: module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 or Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
According to our database: Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 has higher module efficiency (23.90% vs 23.70%); Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.260%/°C vs -0.290%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 has a module efficiency of 23.90%, while Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 is 23.70%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 use vs Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 uses TOPCon cells; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 uses TOPCon. Modern n-type technologies (TOPCon, HJT, BC) typically deliver higher efficiency and lower degradation compared to older PERC (p-type) cells.
What is the warranty on Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735?
Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 has a 30 years power warranty; Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 has a 30 years power warranty. The power warranty guarantees a minimum percentage of rated output at the end of the warranty period (typically 80-87%). Product (materials) warranties are usually shorter.
Are Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 bifacial panels?
Both Astronergy CHSM66RN(DG)/F-BQ-645 and Astronergy CHSM66N(DG)/F-BH-735 are bifacial - they capture reflected light from the ground, which can add 5-15% more annual energy on ground-mount or elevated rooftop installations with a light surface beneath.
Shop prices: See 37 Astronergy offers
Every figure here is from the manufacturers' own datasheets - a dash means the value is not published, never an estimate. The thirty-year projection and the temperature scenarios are calculations from those figures, and each states its assumption above.

