Seen 8 or 9 watt LEDs in Aldi for £2.50, same cap/size, similar lumens, havent used myself though.

Surely with led bulbs it depends on the leds used? Quite a difference between lumens/watt over all the ones around lately.

60w equivalent LED will consume around 7-8w
So these will definitely be CFL bulbs that take around a minute to get to full brightness!

These are CFL apparently (they look like CFL in the photo too).
Generally a 60w equivalent LED will use 9-10 w. Newer "filament" style LEDs are even more efficient at 6-7w.
You only need to do the maths end these do warrant the higher prices. The fact that they should last 15 years+ at far less than 15x the cost of standard bulbs should be enough. Some do fail early, but the majority don't. I've got CFLs still going from 10years ago. I've replaced a lot of them with LED as prefer the instant light.
But the maths speak for themselves. A single 50w Halogen bulb used for 3 hours a day (say in a kitchen) will consume c 55kw/h per year at a cost of between around £5.50 to £8.25 a year. It will last around 2 years. So a £5 LED GU10 will pay for itself within a year. And should last at least 7 times as long. And decent Gu10s are easily available for £2 or less, so the equivalent of 4 normal halogens at around 50p each. And you don't have the hassle of constantly replacing them or your electrics tripping each time one of them blows.

I get that LED bulbs require far less power (Watts) to generate an equivalent amount of light to the old incandescent bulb, but what I don't get is the huge range in what manufacturer's state are equivalent, and in this instance the huge difference in power ratings that are supposedly delivering the same thing.

Having bought a few LED bulbs recently that have been dimmer than hoped and disappointing, trying to find bulbs that are genuinely equivalent to the 60W and 100W bulbs they were replacing I found even the guidance can't agree on what power these new bulbs should be:


I just don't trust the manufacturers when in this thread we have one bulb stating 14W to produce 780 lumen, while another uses just 6W to produce the same. Well which is it? Surely they can't both produce the same output when one uses more than twice the power using the same technology.

I just can't help buy feel we are currently being taken for a ride on this notion of energy saving, whereas we end up paying far more for the new bulb (giving less light) than we actually save in electricity.

After a bit of research I just found out that they're CFL.

This is not a LED bulb- it's a Philips Ecoambience bulb, which are regular energy-saving bulbs. That explains why it's less energy efficient and has about half the lifespan of an actual Philips LED bulb.

Here's the screw cap version:

https://www.svetila.com/en/economy/7355-eco-ambiance-a-14w-827-ww-e27-8710163215631.html

And here's a link to the bayonet cap version:

https://www.osvetlenisvitidla.cz/zarovka-philips-b22-20w-230v-ecoambiance/

Those wattage and lifetime figures sound like CFL, are these definitely LEDs?

and it's warm white

It's bayonet

I bought a load of SES (E14) golf ball style worked out about £1.26 as ordered over 10 for 4 watts warm white from CPC very good bulbs.

Poundlands own make don't last so avoid. these philips ones should be fine.

from picture looks like bayonet

are these bayonet or screw in ?

nice spot, will check these out tomorrow, a 14w would surely be at least 100w would it not ?