--- title: "ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 - Solar Panel Comparison | ComparePV" description: "Compare ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 side by side: what actually differs, output when it is hot, thirty-year production, and the full specification." source: "https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670" updated: 2026-09-11 --- # ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670 670 leads on the differences that matter The largest is module efficiency: 0.32 pp more efficient. 16 of 19 comparable parameters are identical. ## The two panels | Attribute | A | B | | --- | --- | --- | | Panel | [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660) | [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670](https://comparepv.com/panel/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670) | | Manufacturer | ZNShine | ZNShine | | Power | 660 Wp | 670 Wp | | Efficiency | 21.25 % | 21.57 % | | Technology | PERC | PERC | ## Where they differ Ranked by how much the difference matters, not by datasheet order. | Parameter | 660 | 670 | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Module efficiency | 21.25 % | 21.57 % | +0.32 pp for 670 | | Power density | 212.5 Wp/m² | 215.7 Wp/m² | +3.2 Wp/m² for 670 | | Rated power | 660 Wp | 670 Wp | +10 W for 670 | ## Every compared parameter | Parameter | 660 | 670 | | --- | --- | --- | | Rated power | 660 Wp | 670 Wp | | Module efficiency | 21.25 % | 21.57 % | | Power density | 212.5 Wp/m² | 215.7 Wp/m² | | Open-circuit voltage | 45.60 V | 46.00 V | | Voltage at max power | 37.80 V | 38.20 V | | Short-circuit current | 18.52 A | 18.62 A | | Current at max power | 17.47 A | 17.54 A | | Temperature coefficient | -0.340 %/°C | -0.340 %/°C | | Dimensions | 2384x1303x35 mm | 2384x1303x35 mm | | Module area | 3.106 m² | 3.106 m² | | Weight | 33.5 kg | 33.5 kg | | Weight per kWp | 50.8 kg/kWp | 50.0 kg/kWp | | Product warranty | 12 yrs | 12 yrs | | Performance warranty | 25 yrs | 25 yrs | | Annual degradation | 0.55 %/yr | 0.55 %/yr | | Cell technology | PERC | PERC | | Cell type | Monocrystalline | Monocrystalline | | Cell count | 132 | 132 | | Bifacial | No | No | ## Thirty-year yield Each panel's own declared degradation curve, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year Same temp coeff. for both panels (-0.340 %/°C), so a warmer roof scales both curves by the same factor: the totals fall together and neither panel gains on the other. - **Cumulative output, 660:** 21,390 kWh - **Cumulative output, 670:** 21,714 kWh - **Gap:** 324 kWh ## Output when hot | Condition | Cell temperature | 660 | 670 | Retained | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard test conditions | 25 °C | 660 W | 670 W | 100.0% of rated power | | Cool, bright day | 40 °C | 626 W | 636 W | 94.9% of rated power | | Typical summer roof | 55 °C | 593 W | 602 W | 89.8% of rated power | | Hot roof | 70 °C | 559 W | 567 W | 84.7% of rated power | ## Against the whole database | Measure | 660 | 670 | Out of | Note | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Efficiency | #8,904 | #7,734 | 14,005 | 670 leads by 1,170 places | | Power density | #8,959 | #7,644 | 14,005 | 670 leads by 1,315 places | | Heat behaviour | #8,778 | #8,778 | 14,005 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Weight | #4,172 | #3,317 | 14,005 | 670 leads by 855 places | | Warranty | #9,798 | #9,798 | 14,005 | Tied - the same position in the database | | Overall | #4,111 | #3,392 | 14,005 | 670 leads by 719 places | ## Questions ### Which panel is better: ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 or ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670? According to our database: **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670** has higher module efficiency (**21.57%** vs **21.25%**). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture. ### What is the efficiency of ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 and ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670? **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660** has a module efficiency of **21.25%**, while **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670** is **21.57%**. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited. ### What cell technology does ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 use vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670? **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660** uses **PERC** cells; **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670** uses **PERC**. 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 ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 and ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670? **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660** has a **25 years** power warranty; **ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670** has a **25 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. ## Related comparisons - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-670W](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670w) - 3 differences, the largest is module efficiency - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-665W](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-665w) - The same specification on paper - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-665](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-665) - The same specification on paper - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660W](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660w) - The same specification on paper - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-655W](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-655w) - The same specification on paper - [ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-660 vs ZNShine ZXM8-TP132-655](https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-655) - The same specification on paper --- Source: https://comparepv.com/compare/znshine-zxm8-tp132-660/znshine-zxm8-tp132-670 Not in this file, on the page: the thirty-year yield curve year by year at a cell temperature you pick and a written summary generated on request.