Skip to main content
370 NT mono PERC vs 640 XL 3 of 19 identical Swap Change panels

Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-640 XL

Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC
Silfab
SIL-370 NT mono PERC
370 Wp 18.70 % PERC
VS
Silfab
SIL-640 XL
640 Wp 22.92 % N-type Bifacial
The verdict

640 XL leads on the differences that matter

The largest is module efficiency: 4.22 pp more efficient. 3 of 19 comparable parameters are identical.

See all 16 differences
How alike are they
3 of 19 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs
01

What actually differs

16 of 19 parameters
Parameter 370 NT mono PERC 640 XL Difference
Module efficiency 18.70 % 22.92 % 4.22 pp more efficient
Temperature coefficient -0.380 %/°C -0.290 %/°C 0.090 %/°C better in heat
Rated power 370 Wp 640 Wp 270 W more power
Power density 186.9 Wp/m² 229.2 Wp/m² 42.3 Wp/m² higher
Annual degradation 0.50 %/yr 0.30 %/yr 0.20 %/yr slower
Weight 21.5 kg 29.5 kg 8.0 kg lighter
Weight per kWp 58.1 kg/kWp 46.1 kg/kWp 12.0 kg/kWp lighter
Open-circuit voltage 47.50 V 57.76 V 10.26 V apart
Short-circuit current 9.90 A 13.76 A 3.86 A apart
Module area 1.980 m² 2.793 m² 0.813 m² apart
Cell technology PERC N-type PERC vs N-type
Voltage at max power 38.10 V 48.78 V 10.68 V apart
Current at max power 9.70 A 13.12 A 3.42 A apart
Cell count 72 156 84 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Dimensions 1992x994x38 mm 2465x1133x35 mm 1992x994x38 mm vs 2465x1133x35 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
370 NT mono PERC
11,968 kWh
640 XL
21,577 kWh
Lifetime gap
9,609 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario 370 NT mono PERC 640 XL
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 370 W 640 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 94.3% of rated power 349 W 612 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 88.6% of rated power 328 W 584 W
Hot roof 70 °C 82.9% of rated power 307 W 556 W
03

Full specification

Parameter 370 NT mono PERC 640 XL Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 370 Wp 640 Wp +270 W for 640 XL
Module efficiency 18.70 % 22.92 % +4.22 pp for 640 XL
Power density 186.9 Wp/m² 229.2 Wp/m² +42.3 Wp/m² for 640 XL
Open-circuit voltage 47.50 V 57.76 V 10.26 V apart
Voltage at max power 38.10 V 48.78 V 10.68 V apart
Short-circuit current 9.90 A 13.76 A 3.86 A apart
Current at max power 9.70 A 13.12 A 3.42 A apart
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.380 %/°C -0.290 %/°C +0.090 %/°C for 640 XL
Mechanical
Dimensions 1992x994x38 mm 2465x1133x35 mm 1992x994x38 mm vs 2465x1133x35 mm
Module area 1.980 m² 2.793 m² 0.813 m² apart
Weight 21.5 kg 29.5 kg -8.0 kg for 370 NT mono PERC
Weight per kWp 58.1 kg/kWp 46.1 kg/kWp -12.0 kg/kWp for 640 XL
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 25 yrs 25 yrs Same
Performance warranty 30 yrs 30 yrs Same
Annual degradation 0.50 %/yr 0.30 %/yr -0.20 %/yr for 640 XL
Technology
Cell technology PERC N-type PERC vs N-type
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 72 156 84 cells apart
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,005 panels
Efficiency
#13,058 vs #2,350
640 XL leads by 10,708 places
Power density
#13,048 vs #2,379
640 XL leads by 10,669 places
Heat behaviour
#13,397 vs #2,165
640 XL leads by 11,232 places
Weight
#11,565 vs #1,004
640 XL leads by 10,561 places
Warranty
#21 vs #21
Tied - the same position in the database
Overall
#11,845 vs #650
640 XL leads by 11,195 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-440 QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-430 QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-430-QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC vs Silfab SIL-420 QD
14 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-640 XL vs Silfab SIL-630 XL
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Silfab
Silfab SIL-640 XL vs Silfab SIL-620 XL
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

Checking cache...
07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC or Silfab SIL-640 XL?
According to our database: Silfab SIL-640 XL has higher module efficiency (22.92% vs 18.70%); Silfab SIL-640 XL tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.290%/°C vs -0.380%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC and Silfab SIL-640 XL?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC has a module efficiency of 18.70%, while Silfab SIL-640 XL is 22.92%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC use vs Silfab SIL-640 XL?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC uses PERC cells; Silfab SIL-640 XL uses N-type. 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 Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC and Silfab SIL-640 XL?
Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC has a 30 years power warranty; Silfab SIL-640 XL 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 Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC and Silfab SIL-640 XL bifacial panels?
Silfab SIL-640 XL is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Silfab SIL-370 NT mono PERC is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 2 Silfab 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.