M17X RGB LED TN vs 8740w IPS

Here's the screen comparison (pics) that a few people requested.
Enjoy!

 

wow.. how are the white's on the hp? smooth or grainy?

 

The white's are smooth but there's a mild tint of red when looking from certain angles. It's not noticeable unless you are searching for it deliberately.
BTW, my RGB LED in M17X had it as well but calibrating the screen solved the problem so I'm hoping to do the same with the IPS (need to save money for the HP tool).


On a side note, both screens were in 8-bit per color mode. That's the max for the TN, but the IPS is capable of 10-bit (~x50 time more colours). Unfortunately, windows doesn't support it natively yet

 

Oh my... Although 8740 is clearly the winner plus I'm so picky with display, I don't wanna go HP route!

 

That looks great, thanks for the comparison. It's not as drastic as say RGB LED vs traditional LED but the difference is there. BTW is it true the DC screen is only 210 candles? A bit low for a screen that size if true.

 

That's my biggest worry, but so far, from all the notebooks I've ever touched this elitebook is beaten only by M17X in terms of build quality. The HP is solid, but the AW is Rock Solid!

Yes, only 210. However, the screen uses a different type of backlight (according to the cheif architect of HP DC department), which doesn't really need that many candles.
I keep the M17X @ 50% (~ 150nit) - that's the comfortable brightness for my eyes @ work with all the reflections. The IPS is set to about 120 - same conditions. But it's anti glare and that explains the 30nit difference.
But for those who keep their RGB LEDs at 80%+, this IPS panel would be weak, you're right. Good point.

 

Stop trying to ruin my thoughts of having the best laptop in the universe people...

 

Well I have a "very good" IPS screen in the form of a U2711. And with the graininess I see on nearly all IPS screens, I'm uninclined to purchase one ever again. So for that reason alone I'd take the Dell RGB LED.

Moreover does someone really "need" a wide viewing angle on a laptop? Are you viewing from around the room? Really? Again, I think the RGB LED is the better option.

Also comparing your pictures the IPS screen is running a bit on the warm side and the RGB LED is running on the cool side. When editing pictures I like things to be dead in the middle. But for general PC use I find a cooler picture to be less fatiguing over time (working 12+ hours in front of a screen).

So while it's a nice technical achievement on the part of HP. I prefer the Dell screen. Mind you - isn't it very nice that we have a choice! Because screens are a very personal kind of choice, so these preferences above are exactly that, preferences only.

 

Yes, it's a necessity.... for me.

You need not jump to the extreme of thinking this only be advantageous to viewing from around the room. When the laptop (mobile workstation really) is under 2 feet from your eyes, and lets say your eyes are centered on the screen and are perpendicular to it, and the screen is large, the viewing angle to the corners is non-trivial, and with TN you will already see shifted333 and washed out hues. Then consider the freedom to move the machine or your head around so that your eyes are looking up or down or from one edge, and appreciate that that doesn't shift the color hue or wash out the saturation.

You talk about editing pictures. Do you edit RAWs? In the time I'd been doing so in Lightroom on laptops for a good number of years -- external displays aren't an option for reasons I won't go into here, but I do have a great HP 23" IPS display; tho it's not LED RGB it still made me understand why I wanted an IPS in a laptop -- I had discovered the shortcomings of using a TN display (let alone it only displaying 6-bits of color), where god forbid I look @ what Lightroom is showing me from an angle below perpendicular looking up @ the screen.

That is my main reason for needing/wanting this IPS display which is further capable coming closest to displaying all the the colors my camera can capture in a portable package to date (once the software catches up ; and once again, a laptop being a necessity given my situation). You see, thinking back to the 1st scenario, I grew tired of continuously shifting my head around to be perpendicular to the 4 corners of the screen while post processing so that the colors wouldn't be shifted and washed out due to the manner TN displays do so; the more annoying the bigger the screen.

...yes, some of us certainly need an IPS display, of further benefit being it's gamut capable of exceeding AdobeRGB, of further benefit of it being able to display true 10-bits of color info out of the gamut (last part again, when the software catches up).

 

1. The RGB LED in the M17x is 8-bit.
2. It has wide viewing angles, just not the extreme that DC2 display has.
3. The RGB LED exceeds adobe sRGB as well (~120%).
4. The RGB LED is much brighter than the DC2 IPS display.
5. IPS display's have severe input lag making them unfit for gaming compared to TN displays. Another article that compares TN vs IPS input lag: Product Face-Offs Monitors - DigitalVersus

Overall, while the IPS certainly has slightly better color reproduction, it's at a cost. For professional photographers it's what they need but for the purpose of gaming, it doesn't measure up because of it's input lag. Furthermore, it's 210 cd (vs 315 cd for RGB LED) brightness is low for a 17" display.

I'll leave you with an Anandtech review of the RGB LED display: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2957/9 It's a review of the M6500 but they both use the same panel.

Bottomline: It's a wash depending on what you want to do. For competitive gamers and people that want a bright display, the RGB LED is the winner and for photographers/photoshop professionals and casual gamers, it's the IPS.

 

I can see the need, but most folks will be happier with the RGBLED. I used to edit raw but time doesn't allow AS much as it used to. I still do, just not as much.

But I understand your need.

 

And I understand a lot more about screen lol

Thanks folks!

 

I think that overall, RGB LED (TN) is a very good screen and owning one - I love it! It's absolutely the best TN laptop panel!

But the IPS (personally for me) is the new hotness. I mean, to appreciate it you must see it. No photo (taken with an average quality camera and then edited with MS paint and uploaded to a hosting site) will let you see the true picture...

And gaming... For the first time I saw that not all the trees and grass in Crysis are green and their shades. There are plenty of brown and withered leaves and twigs. You just see more, and deeper, - at least that's my impression.

In addition, I've tried about 10 different games and there was no input lag (not even in CS and UT ). Even if it exists, it is unnoticeable by the average gamer.

I wanted to put it into the M17x but the connector is different.

 

You better stop it Aikimox lol. This is Alienware playground

 

And I'm an Alienware midfield player

 

You can't notice input lag for an IPS monitor when playing. However, if you look at the measurements, it's about 1-1.5 frames off which makes a huge difference in online gaming. That's why competitive gamers never buy HDTV's to use as PC monitors even though they're way cheaper. There's been tons of discussions about input lag regarding SPVA vs. IPS vs. TN and TN always comes out on top by far. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the IPS has gorgeous colors since it's 10-bit but it's got it's share of shortcomings too which the RGB LED doesn't. Here's a rather large discussion on input lag: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1131464 It's one of the primary reasons I sold my Samsung 52" LCD HDTV and switched to the plasma Pioneer Kuro when I was living in Florida.

 

Yes I agree, even though I never noticed any lag during CS and America's Army 3 online , sniping the noobs on every corner. In fact, played many older FPS online games on a ThikPad with a trackpoint instead of a mouse and had a decent frag-rate... Still, when you get to the highest level of clan wars, when money is at stake, - you start appreciating the gaming mice, KBs, good quality screens, etc...
Yes, I know what you mean, but as was mentioned the lag will be unnoticeable by the average (not hardcore) gamer. And I also mentioned somewhere that for a gaming laptop the RGB LED is the best choice.
Totally agree with you.

 

Yes I agree, for a casual gamer it doesn't matter. For people that are into competitive gaming online, every millisecond counts. Since the RGB LED isn't just an average WLED panel, it has the advantage of better viewing angles + >100% sRGB gamut to offset it's TN origins. I think having both as an option for the M17x would be fantastic. I'd probably still go with RGB LED but I'm sure there's plenty of others that would choose IPS.

 

Yeah i have never noticed any lag on my desktop screen but i know its there based on what the pro's say.. Im not competitive anymore online though so its all good and i would not trade this quality for anything ...

Its basically like looking at a giant M17x RGB screen with no reflection.... The Greens and Reds are insane... Aikimox's screen though is amazing even if not the brightest though i do love bright displays more then anything....

Dell 30" Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor

 

I am mid diamond level in SC2 and current champion of the U.S. in my hl2dm clan.

I think I will need to borrow your laptop for "competitive" testing purposes Aikimox, how about it?

 

There's a competitive HL2 DM scene? When I was into competitive online gaming back in the day I used to play Quake 2 and 3. I've got fond memories of Rocket Arena 2 clan matches.

 

Wow wow wow

I feel ashamed

 

Indeed!!

Add me on steam @ v1sions Joker since my friend request went unreplied to for months

HL2DM is the last game standing in terms of a real implemented bunnyhop, and since I played Q3 competitively it was my last place to go for my true skills gaming fix.


@silly dont feel ashamed! SC2 came naturally to me only because I played blitz chess IRL. Only the biggest of nerds can get there, and not too many people envy big nerds (funny thing is most people say I look the opposite of one IRL)

 

Whoa!

Don't make my screen feel miserable...

Yeah, when they disabled bunnyhop in AA - all the fun was gone

 

Aiki = do you see that grainy anti glare coating on the IPS screen? They all have it (LG puts it in all non glare screens) but it shows up stronger in some screens. Just stare at a pure white and you'll know pretty quick.

Another thing to note, before anyone thinks this screen should be in the M17x is that 10 bit panels can only be driven by workstation grade chips, both from AMD and Nvidia. That means this is squarely in the 8740 and M6500 arenas, FYI.

I still find myself opening up the pics and having a careful look... lovely pics

 

Yes, if I stare at a white background 20cm from the screen, then I can see it. Don't see anything @ a regular "working" distance from the screen though.
Yes, it's the anti-glare coating for sure. Still, it's far better than the best external filters I tried on M17X, - those were really grainy.

 

I really really hate the grainy coating..

 

Yep - I like my U2711 overall but the coating is a glaring fault. Only way to avoid it on IPS screens is to go glare clear front panel (Apple went this route). It's sad to see on otherwise beautiful screens. It'll probably have me back to PVA next time around.

Good to hear that it's mild enough to ignore at reasonable "working" distances. But for me I'll go RGBLED - Dell and avoid it entirely.

 

The RGB in the r2 has that grainy coating too btw

 

I certainly wouldn't argue w/any of that as I completely agree.

I guess if anything I'm guilty of not realizing my audience when I interjected by opinion. The only game I played in the last few years (other than a demo here and there) has been Spore and games weren't on my mind at all.

 

Malignant - that is not good news to me

/sigh

 

You and me both buddy.. the macbook pro's i see at the apple store/bestbuy don't have that ugly grainy coating and to me looks better than the RGB led on the R2 even though they are only 200 nit WLED screens.

 

IIRC, in the very first review of R2 the OP also put some pics for comparison between MBP and R2 display and R2 is agreed that have better display, by most users here.

Joker, as I assume that is also very picky when it comes to display, also agreed that R2 has better display.

I guess it's to each his own but I'm gonna find out myself soon

 

Yeah Apple seems to understand the only "reasonable" way to deal with the grain is to go glossy. /sigh

Well if it's too strong I'll end up sending it back.

 

Yeah but most people here don't even notice the graininess or it doesn't bother them one bit so of course the brighter higher color gamut screen will win their favor. I however, prefer the screen without any of this grainy coating nonsense even if sacrificing some color gamut or brightness, although I can't really tolerate really dim screens either.

 

The IPS clearly wins (as viewed on a cheap TN panel after going through a camera lens). I'd take it over the RGB any day. I have no disillusions of ever being good enough to notice a single frame lag.

 

iPad display is IPS too. How would it compare to R2 display?

 

Today I turned the 10-bit on.... x50 more color depth...
I long for 2 things now - an adequate camera and native 10-bit per color support in W7 (for now, it disables the aero every time) and games.

 

About the RGBLED screen of the m17xr2 can you tell me what brand it is? is it LG or hanns? is it better than the led hd screen on the asus g73?
thanks

 

If it's grainy it's LG.

 

Samsung and yes it's better than what the G73 has, much better.

 

I think the 8740w has a bit red tint, and it seemed to be different between the gammas of the two. Just look in the last photo, you would see the right display offers more details than the left one, they look like the right is using 1.8 gamma, and the left 2.2.

In my opinion, the 8740w has perfect angle, beautiful look but not as accurate as the M17x.

 

First, there's no red tint. I had red and yellow tints in my R2 before calibrating. It was fixed.
Second, both screens can be set to gamma 1.8 and produce the same detail level. But if you set the RGB LED to 2.2 - you'll regret it rightaway.
I'm still playing with profiles and waiting for the hardware tool for proper calibration. Will update the first post when I have more info/pics.

 

I read somewhere about using gamma 1.8 & 2.2 on the RGB LED and like you said, it's terrible to use the 2.2.

So, what is the gamma of the 8740w? I don't think it's 1.8, because if they were at the same gamma, the left one seemed to offer more details than the right one.

 

it's 2.2, you're right. It seems that without the HP tool I can't force it at 1.8.
Also, I guess, there was my mistake to set the left screen at FULL/Native (yet 8-bit) mode. This resulted in oversaturated colors. Guess, I'll have to do another round of pics.

 

I'm very excited by the IPS panel and still waiting for your update! Thank you.

 

As you cross-posted this, I'll cross post the reply; for the archives.

You should not expect to be able to judge the color accuracy of a screen via a photograph of an image on a screen no matter how good the camera. [!!!] Why just the slightest of inaccuracy of the white balance would be responsible for an accurate screen looking inaccurate, and inaccurate screen more accurate.

Aikimox knows a lot but he'd probably be the 1st to admit he doesn't know that if he uses the JPEGs out of the camera and needs color accuracy he can/should shoot a 18% gray card (primary use for setting proper exposure but also useful in providing proper white balance) and manually set white-balance off that (though that's still inaccurate as it leave WB accuracy to what the user thinks is correct), or more accurately to shoot raw, do the same test shot, then set white balance of the image in post based on the test shot. As nothing like that was done, you're expecting the camera's in-camera RAW->JPG processing and white-balance it calculated it should use to be 100% accurate. ...it won't be.

Further, a bit more on Gamma. From the good folks on this board I've read that the choice of 1.8 for the M17x is to correct for an error on Dell's part. Aside from the M17x situation, all machines running a Windows OS are supposed to have the graphics card set to operate @ a 2.2 [edit: when using the sRGB or AdobeRGB color spaces] to provide luminance accuracy. ...so the 8740w should be set to 2.2. Else if you're post processing an image, the luminance will be all off in the image produced when viewed on anyone else's computer all over the world.

 

You seemed to be urgent as posting this reply. Ok, I've got no ideas! You wrote like I had depreciated the comparison result, no I'm not doing this.

I'm not a photographer but let's be in the view of a human, when compare two things, they should be in the same conditions. When using gamma 2.2, M17x (also M6500) appears to be losers not only to the 8740w but all the other high-end machines. But why couldn't the 8740w be set to 1.8? The gamma is quite different between 1.8 and 2.2, you know it clearly. And comparing the two quite different like those above is not "comparison" anymore.

I don't own a DELL's, and not HP's too. But I'm glad to see them here, it would be most appreciated, thank you, anyway.

 

why couldn't gamma [gamma correction more precisely] be set to 1.8? For the reason cited above.

What I'm addressing is that is shouldn't be set to 1.8. You do realize all of this has to do with calibrating of the screen to meet/match a standard, right? let's say sRGB. Point is sRGB is defined for the computer's image delivery hardware and software systems to use a gamma correction of 2.2. Of course this is all supposition until someone actually does it, but my eyes tell me the following is true: The 8740w needs to be at or near the right value, 2.2, for the image on the screen to match the standard; the M17x needs to be set to a wildly different value 1.8, to make the image produced match the standard regardless of the fact that the standard says the gamma correction should be set at 2.2. So its that we are trying to achieve the image produced on both machines are matching to the standard that defines the correct gamma to use, and why the end result will be apples to apples with one at 2.2 and the other at 1.8.

Now, if you want your computer screen's luminescence from darks up to medium brights to be incorrectly and un-naturally presented, you go right ahead and use your 8740w (or any computer usign the Windows OS for that matter) at a gamma correction of 1.8. What makes you happy is all that matters. Just don't be surprised that if you do some image processing of an image and share it online, everyone is asking you why the image's luminescence levels are so screwed up; because I just told you why.

 

Then don't cross-post statements across the forum that need to be addressed so that any readers coming along don't get the wrong impression/understanding. Pick one thread.