EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG
VS
The verdict
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads on the differences that matter
The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.040 %/°C better in heat. 7 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.
See all 12 differencesHow alike are they
7
of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
parameters are identical
identical
differs
01
12 of 19 parameters
What actually differs
Parameter
590M60-HU/BF-DG
665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Difference
Temperature coefficient
-0.340 %/°C
-0.300 %/°C
0.040 %/°C better in heat
Rated power
590 Wp
665 Wp
75 W more power
Module efficiency
20.84 %
21.40 %
0.56 pp more efficient
Weight
35.0 kg
38.3 kg
3.3 kg lighter
Open-circuit voltage
41.31 V
46.78 V
5.47 V apart
Module area
2.830 m²
3.106 m²
0.276 m² apart
Power density
208.5 Wp/m²
214.1 Wp/m²
5.6 Wp/m² higher
Cell technology
PERC
TOPCon
PERC vs TOPCon
Voltage at max power
34.21 V
38.99 V
4.78 V apart
Cell count
120
132
12 cells apart
Annual degradation
0.45 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
0.05 %/yr slower
Dimensions
2172x1303x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2172x1303x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 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
590M60-HU/BF-DG
19,429 kWh
665NT66-HU/BF-DG
22,312 kWh
Lifetime gap
2,883 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario
590M60-HU/BF-DG
665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Standard test conditions
25 °C
100.0% of rated power
590 W
665 W
Cool, bright day
40 °C
94.9% of rated power
560 W
635 W
Typical summer roof
55 °C
89.8% of rated power
530 W
605 W
Hot roof
70 °C
84.7% of rated power
500 W
575 W
03
Full specification
Parameter
590M60-HU/BF-DG
665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power
590 Wp
665 Wp
+75 W for 665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Module efficiency
20.84 %
21.40 %
+0.56 pp for 665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Power density
208.5 Wp/m²
214.1 Wp/m²
+5.6 Wp/m² for 665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Open-circuit voltage
41.31 V
46.78 V
5.47 V apart
Voltage at max power
34.21 V
38.99 V
4.78 V apart
Short-circuit current
18.30 A
18.07 A
Effectively the same
Current at max power
17.25 A
17.06 A
Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient
-0.340 %/°C
-0.300 %/°C
+0.040 %/°C for 665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Mechanical
Dimensions
2172x1303x35 mm
2384x1303x35 mm
2172x1303x35 mm vs 2384x1303x35 mm
Module area
2.830 m²
3.106 m²
0.276 m² apart
Weight
35.0 kg
38.3 kg
-3.3 kg for 590M60-HU/BF-DG
Weight per kWp
59.3 kg/kWp
57.6 kg/kWp
Effectively the same
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty
12 yrs
12 yrs
Same
Performance warranty
30 yrs
30 yrs
Same
Annual degradation
0.45 %/yr
0.40 %/yr
-0.05 %/yr for 665NT66-HU/BF-DG
Technology
Cell technology
PERC
TOPCon
PERC vs TOPCon
Cell type
Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline
Same
Cell count
120
132
12 cells apart
Bifacial
Yes
Yes
Same
04
14,005 panels
Against the whole database
Efficiency
#10,421
vs
#8,323
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads by 2,098 places
Power density
#10,359
vs
#8,250
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads by 2,109 places
Heat behaviour
#8,778
vs
#6,093
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads by 2,685 places
Weight
#12,099
vs
#11,303
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads by 796 places
Warranty
#21
vs
#21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#6,044
vs
#2,833
665NT66-HU/BF-DG leads by 3,211 places
05
Open the full database
More useful comparisons
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-685NT66-HU/BF-DG
13 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-680NT66-HU/BF-DG
13 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-675NT66-HU/BF-DG
13 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-670NT66-HU/BF-DG
13 differences, the largest is temperature coefficient
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-670M66-HU/BF-DG
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
EGing PV
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG vs EGing PV EG-670M66-HUV
13 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06
Written summary
Checking cache...
07
Questions about this pairing
Which panel is better: EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG or EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG?
According to our database: EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG has higher module efficiency (21.40% vs 20.84%); EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.300%/°C vs -0.340%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG and EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG?
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG has a module efficiency of 20.84%, while EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG is 21.40%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG use vs EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG?
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG uses PERC cells; EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG 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 EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG and EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG?
EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG has a 30 years power warranty; EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG 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 EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG and EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG bifacial panels?
Both EGing PV EG-590M60-HU/BF-DG and EGing PV EG-665NT66-HU/BF-DG 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 3 EGing PV 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.