If you want to light up a 2.5 x 2.5 space, that's 6.25 sqft. The T-5 at 125 watts gets you 20 watts per square foot, and the HLG at 96 watts gets you 15 watts/sqft.
Both are on the low side, but the HLG puts out 50% more lumens, so that would be equal to 150 watts of fluoro, more like 24 watts/sqft.
As far as heat, wattage = heat, unless you can mount the driver/transformer outside the tent.
The HLG costs 3 times as much and you get 50% more lumens with 80% of the heat. Fluoro bulbs will decay and fail while QBs last 50,000 hours.
Long-term, the HLG is the better choice, but T-5 prices won't be decreasing, while mid-power white LEDs will. You can probably buy the equivalent of the HLG cheaper next year.
I'm all QBs now, and I love 'em! But ... 3 times the cost - hard to make the case for other people to spend money they don't HAVE to.
Nice thanks for the info.
Wattage = heat isn't 100% accurate. Yes, generally speaking, more wattage means more heat, but only wattage that isn't converted into light will be converted into heat. So when comparing different lights, one light may be converting more of it's energy into heat than the other.
If we're talking about a single light fixture, yes, increasing wattage will result in a heat increase. But if we're comparing different lights, their wattage doesn't necessarily translate into the same amount of heat.
I beg to differ. That light becomes heat when it's done being used. Numerous tests show it to be true.
The point is that an efficient source produces the same lumens with less heat. If, instead, you take more lumens with equal watts, you get equal heat - with more lumens - but still equal heat.
Believe me, I looked into it thoroughly, because it seems wrong. But it isn't. Watts are heat = same, same. The light becomes heat, but first we get to use it, so we get more light, yes. But equal heat with equal watts.