Returned G73 model due to inferior AUO screen vs. LG display.

I felt kind of bad that I got the inferior AUO B173RW01 screen, so I returned the unit for a full refund to Best Buy. It just doesn't seem fair to me that some G73s have a superior LG screen, and some have an inferior AUO screen. I don't think that some people should have to settle for an inferior display when they are buying the same model laptop. Regardless, the laptop still is a great deal, but there really shouldn't be a mix/match of parts on the same model laptop.

I think most people don't spend $1300 every day, so I kind of want one with the LG screen of course. So now I got my money back and am wondering if I should take another gamble buying from BB and just hope I get one with the LG screen, or settle for the Tigerdirect model which has a bit more bells and whistles(better web cam, bluetooth, more 2gb more ram, two hard drives meaning you will have another caddy for that SSD upgrade), and a guaranteed, better quality 1080p screen for about that same price after bing cash back.

The thing is I don't want a 1080p screen. I want to game on this thing with the existing monitor at times, and prefer the lower resolution. So I'm definitely stumped. I sure don't like to gamble with $1300. And I doubt the BB employee will allow me to check to see if the laptop has the LG display before purchase.

Granted the G73 is a great price regardless, but I sure wish there was a way to make sure I got the LG display at BB. If you guys find a way by perhaps identifying if the g73 has the LG display before opening the box, LMK.

 

Lucky for u
I odered G73 on eaby from USA to AUS
There's no chance for me to ask for a exchange or refund.
The item is still on its way, 50% shot, god bless me.

 

Well i got my from j and r just lower the resolution i don't know why people these days complain about res and games and everything else, if you type papers like i do so much then you appreciate the higher res when doing side by side work! Always having better is better than having none, i thought the best buy model had only the lg screen was crap compared to the hanstarr one just wow, such low contrast levels so much great blacks on this beast, too bad not enough brightness. Be nice if it was a lg, the best thing about buying a best buy model machine is the fact that if anything happens bad then it will be replaced and not RMAed and lost lol.

 

Consider ordering the model (G73JH-X3) from tigerdirect. I think with the bing 12.3% discount it is only 60$ more than the BB model with more HDD space and the better option LCD (pretty sure it is the A1/A2 LCD).

 

So it seems the N71JQ and G73JH has the same screen i.e. LG Philips LP173WD1-TLC1.

I agree that the quality of the LG screen is quite good.

 

I like LG.Phillips screen, only problem I had with it once was with my Sager...out of nowhere a white dot and under it a white line apeared, but it was only seeable with white screen in the back...still don't know what was it, I never heard of a dead pixel like this.

 

Isn't there a difference in serial number between the two? (as in on the box?)
I'd gamble though.. But that's just me. I don't have to pay tax either, so it's BB 1200$ v. Tiger 1360$(?).

 

keep in mind BB gets their own specs, there's always something different on their models whether its asus or hp. They always do something cheap and its probably for profit margin.

 

Stuck pixel. Sometimes you can actually rub them out, but you have to be careful not to damage the display by pushing too hard. Try googling Stuck Pixel - there are a few pixel orbiters that can take care of that too supposedly.

 

It is messed up that the same models differ greatly. To add to the frustration it seems that if you get the LG screen you usually get 1066 ram and if you get the Auo screen you usually get 1333 ram. I also prefer 1600 x 900. I'm about to tell freedom this too, but when your screen's native resolution is 1920 x 1080 it does not look as good as a screen that has a native 1600 x 900 res when it is scaled down to the same 1600 x 900 res.
It was so important to me to have a 1600 x 900 that I upgraded to a custom A1 and payed more in the process. Check my signature.

When your screen's native resolution is 1920 x 1080 it does Not look as good as a screen that has a native 1600 x 900 res when it is scaled down to the same 1600 x 900 res.

 

You could try asking...it never hurts. Plus geek squad opens some anyway to install their crapware so they can charge you extra.

 

You sure about that? Man, that sucks, well if I had known that I would of kept the one with the auo screen, lol. I'm all about performance in the long run.

 

Based on posts here and from my personal exchanges I can say that Auo screen usually comes with 1333 and the LG screen usually comes with the 1066. But this is all subject to change because they are all suppose to come with 1066 anyway. I upgraded from 6GB's of 1066 to 8Gb's of 1333 for self gratification with my custom 1600 x 900 G73JH05/A1(see signature). Since the ram upgrade I have NOT seen a difference in performance of any kind. I think 6GB's of 1066 is good enough, but I would upgrade to 8GB's just to be on par with A1. I think mines better because I have a internal Blu-ray burner and the A1 has only a Blu-ray reader. I'm not to concerned with 1.3MP camera vs. 2MP camera because 1.3MP is good enough for me.

 

I have the LG and 1333MHz RAM.

 

Well there you have it, just luck of the draw. This rate, I'm just going with the x3 at tiger.

 

I got an idea now. I'll buy the Tigerdirect x3 model, sell the Hans 1080p screen, and then buy the 1600x900 lg screen. I still wind up paying about the same price, but now I have more hard drive space, 8gb of ram, bluetooth, and the better 2mp web cam...not to mention I won't have to buy a hard drive caddy for the bb model as well. Might just sell one of the 320gb hard drives too, and use that towards an SSD. Maybe there is an even better 1600x900 screen than that LG model I could replace the 1080p with? I know HP laptops usually have really nice screens.

 

I'd say that's alot of trouble to go through.....but looking at my G73JH with upgraded specs I'd then say go for it!!

 

Honestly, try the 1920 x 1080 screen before you decide you don't want it. I have seen the 1600x900 screen at BestBuy and I was not impressed (it was the LG). It's not that the screen quality itself is inferior, but with the resolution it just makes it look incredible.

I have written probably 30 pages worth of papers for university on it and took notes in numerous classes. If it is the size of text you're worried about, your worries are misplaced - I actually lowered the fontsize from the default ASUS theme.

If it is performance you're worried about, again it is misplaced. I run BF BC2 on everything high except shadows, MSAA is 4x and AA is 2x. And it runs smooth as butter. I never (!!) hiccup, regardless of the action, and the only reason shadows are on medium is not because of performance (runs fine on high), it because I find it easier to spot people in the tropical and winter maps with the shadows on medium [compared to high]. Crysis also reportedly plays very nicely on all high settings at native resolution - and it is one of the least optimized games ever released.

I am not trying to tell you that the 1600x900 screen is inferior, but rather, consider saving your money and just giving the 1920x1080 screen a shot.

 

Don't buy the LG screen until you see the Hanns one.

 

He does have a point.
The only rebutle I'd say to that is that at the 1600 x 900(native res) that screen would look better at that res of 1600 x 900 than the 1920 x 1080.
It is also more future resistant.

tailendforwards post also brings to mind this...."If you really went through the trouble of ordering a G73 with 1920 x 1080 would you even want to bother with downgrading the screens res?" Even for a boost in frames? I'd probably just deal with it at 1920 x 1080 and forget about the frames advantage on the 1600 x 900's native res.

 

Yah, might as well I suppose. The 1080p screen would be better for movies and possibly a blu-ray upgrade. I just wish they made a slot loaded blu ray drive. The one on TD is 8GB of ddr3 1066 ram however, not the 1333 ram.

 

Not necessarily. I saw two posts I believe (CBA to go through to link them, but they might be in the TD threads) where the TD G73JH came with the 1333 RAM because the 1066 wasn't available when they were being built (you seem to almost have a 50/50 chance of getting the 1333 RAM when ordering from a reseller).

 

Your post brings to mind this ... "If you really went through the trouble of ordering a G73 with the 1920 x 1080 (despite it being no trouble at all...) would you even want to bother with downgrading the screen res?"

I hardly consider a lower res to be more future resistant. I also hardly consider the frame rates you will 'improve' to be worth downgrading the res on the screen.

YMMV, I guess.

The 1920x1080 is nothing short of an amazing screen, probably the best I have seen in a notebook (but bearing in mind I am in Canada, and we sometimes receive the tech. a little later), and I've been looking at notebooks for about a year and half with my budget at about $2,500.

 

Yah, that's what I'm thinking. I like to watch movies on it too, so 1080p would be better in that regard.

 

It is if your looking at Longevity in videogames. The ATi 5870M has it's limitations. We ALL know that, especially at 1920 x 1080.

It is a Fact that at a native resolution of 1600 x 900 newer games that are more GPU/CPU intensive will have a better frame rate(FPS) in the long run.

You can try and argue about scaling down the resolution from 1920 x 1080 blah blah blah... but we all know that doing that does NOT produce the same quality as the 1600 x 900 native res screen.

I'm surprised this info is rocket science to you

 

I obviously agree that 1080P is better than 900P for HD video playback

 

I'm going to stop responding, I figure, as it is tough having a discussion with you.

Open your mind, at least a bit, and try to be a little less of a [NBR censored my word even though I don't consider it unreasonable] , maybe.

Just because you bought the 1600x900 doesn't mean you need to try to justify that purchase to everyone because it is the screen you bought. The 1920x1080 screen is excellent, bear in mind I believe I mentioned I have compared the two - and I have compared the two in BF BC2.

You take superior resolution, saving money by not having to buy a new screen to downgrade your resolution, etc - the ONLY downside is a marginal decrease in FPS by keeping the 1080p screen.

If you are looking to continue to run games on full settings in the future (I'm imaging you're not talking about the next year (the games coming out in the next year aren't going to stress this system too much), but rather in a few or more years) then this laptop is not for you. Laptops have limitations and your goal should have been a desktop. That was like the one individual who was trying to run Crysis at all ultra-high with AA, etc all full - it's completely unreasonable.

I'm willing to bet that the 1080p screen will have to lower the graphics settings only at the same time as the 1600x900 - the difference between the two isn't going to be a large amount - there is not going to be a game where the 1600x900 is going to outperform the 1920x1080 screen significantly.

After all that being said, I am not convinced you are not some sort of troll - and I will admit, I took the bait.

 

Your just like the little kid that stays up after 10:00pm and asks my 7 year daughter if she can play on a school nite.


This is the most retarded posts of the year congrats

Your Post > I'm willing to bet that the 1080p screen will have to lower the graphics settings only at the same time as the 1600x900 - the difference between the two isn't going to be a large amount - there is not going to be a game where the 1600x900 is going to outperform the 1920x1080 screen significantly.

Have you ever lowered a resolution in a game to see if the performance has improved? I have, and I'd bet most users would agree that in the past, lowering a resolution can significantly boost frames per second.

Just because you bought the screen you have, knowing the limitations of the ATI 5870M doesn't mean you can throw your fiction as fact around here.

We all have a great PC here as long as it works properly.

Who are you to say that the games next year won't stress this system too much?

Do you have inside info? Are you a videogame developer? How do you know that Crysis 2 will play on a G73JH at max settings at 1920 x 1080 or 1600 x 900 with a smooth frame rate and Crysis 2 comes out this year.
The 5870M as powerful as it is, is just the beginning of DX11 GPU's.

Because I've posted with you in the past, I won't go off on you completely because I have respect for you based on some of your other posts.

Lets just agree to disagree and move on

 

Touching on this. Crysis 1 will not run on max settings [even with the 1600x900 res] (thus, could you assume reasonably that Crysis 2 will?). I would assume people would want to play their games on reasonable settings. The G73 can do a good job with Metro 2033, as an example, but to expect it to play at max settings is ludicrous.

I believe you missed some key points of my post - I mentioned significantly improve performance and reasonable expectations (otherwise the desktop is the better option). In BF BC2, I know for a fact the 1600x900 res does not perform significantly better than the 1080p resolution - was not able to measure with FRAPS, unfortunately, but if it was significant you would notice it just eyeballing the systems.

Also, the limitations and unreasonable expectations.

Of course I have lowered the resolution on games to check. I have to do it with my 4.5 year old MBP all the time. If you're expecting this laptop to last greater than 3 years at anywhere near even the middle of the pack - it's an absurd idea, especially with the rate of technological change.

Look at the any games coming out, assume that the 5870 runs like the 5770 (go lower if you choose) and keep your expectations reasonable. If you think that the 1600x900 res is going to significantly outperform the the 1920x1080 in such games, you might be making posts as retarded as I.

What I am trying to get across is that it is not a matter of the resolution of the screen that is going to be the limitation in the future, it will be the actual technology and hardware within the notebook. When there are games that I will have to run on medium on this notebook out, I am sure you will have to do the same with your 1600x900. That is the too long; didn't read of my posts, I am not attacking your choice of screen.

I will also confirm I am a little kid, up far past my bedtime, and that I am retarded.

 

You are sooooo misinformed about what the G73JH at 1600 x 900 can achieve.

Crysis will run smooth maxed out at 1600 x 900 with a frame rate of 55 to lower 32 frames per second. You are so use to 1920 x 1080 that you rate US all at your screens limitations.

That's not fair

You asked; thus, could you assume reasonably that Crysis 2 will?

I already said;
Do you have inside info? Are you a videogame developer? How do you know that Crysis 2 will play on a G73JH at max settings at 1920 x 1080 or 1600 x 900 with a smooth frame rate and Crysis 2 comes out this year.
The 5870M as powerful as it is, is just the beginning of DX11 GPU's.

So you are just talking in circles.
Your screen and mine both have their pro's & cons....I know that your not going to change my mind and like wise...soooooo what games are you playing at 1920 x 1080 maxed out?

 

The 1080p res does hurt the performance of the 5870. Infact, it hurts it so much that my G51 @ 1366x768 performs equally to the G73JH @ 1080p.

Look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtxdSceoxUU

I get the exact same fps with my G51's GTX 260M on the same settings @ 1366x768. The 260M as we all know is a weaker card but the lower res makes up for it. I'm guessing that with all settings and res the same, the G73 would get about 15-20fps more than the G51 on Crysis. Skygunner maybe you could check what fps you get at 1600x900?

Edit: Obviously for more CPU intensive games the G73JH's i7 will stand out.

 

the 260 and the G51 is a solid performer, especially with that CPU you've got in it... I had a T9300 in mine.

My G51 in the first Crysis warhead mission with the crash, at 1366x768 and medium settings, DX10, I was getting anywhere from ~17-30's.

My G73 in the same mission, at 1600x900 (native on my BB model), high settings, and DX10 it runs ~25-40+, but noticeably smoother without the occasional hiccups that the G51 had.

Nota huge difference, but was able to bump all the settings one full level on the G73 and increase to 1600x900, and it still ran smoother and faster. But, as you mentioned, I'm sure bumping the res to 1080p would close the performance gap quite a bit.

As a side note, I don't think that the performance difference would be enough to justify ditching the G51 for the G73. I had great luck with my G51, and it was still performing great in all my games. I just had a buddy offer to buy my G51, and I know that it will only go down in value the longer I had it, so jumped at the chance. Plus, he's never had any kind of gaming machine, so hopefully he'll enjoy it and add to the community.

 

I just got the $1200 model from best buy and while I was trying to watch an episode of Lost I noticed just how terrible the blacks look on this thing! I got the model with the 1333 ram and I would be willing to get a model with the slower ram if the alternate display is much better.

How can I be sure that if I were to return this that it would have the better display and how can I find out what display I have in right now? What are my options?

thanks

 

I just came to say that not all games are like crysis and thus not all games have a linear scaling with resolution. Some games will definitely get a decent boost of fps when lowering the res a bit, others will simply remain the same. For Battlefield BC2, I don't really get a boost of fps changing resolutions, unless it is a big, big change. Thus! I play at 1920x1080 happily.

All that said, I would much rather get the 1920x1080 screen mainly because I love the whole realstate I get I have no problem with lowering resolution if its a must (like borderlands for me) but so far so good with the rest of my games running at 1920x1080.

I definitely want an upgrade, but I want to wait until a stronger GPU comes out. Right now I can play all my games without issues and I am really happy with my laptop, which makes it really difficult to justify an upgrade that won't be over 100% performance increase Man, going from mid range GPU to high end is awesome.

 

There is no way to know from the box which screen you are getting at BB.

You check your screen type by using the method I posted here.

I also doubt BB will let you open it and check the display first, however, many people here suggest there are more LG displays in the BB batch and they are better than the AU but not as good as the 1080p display.

I tend to play at home on my Samsung external monitor and it is 1920x1200. Works fine on all but the most GPU intensive games so I suppose the Tiger Direct 1080p version is an option.

Cheers,

 

thanks, but as i suspected i have the inferior one

i think i'll go to best buy and try to replace it

 

The first thing I'd like to say is that the GTX 260M is a great GPU. In some aspects it performs better than the 5870M. The reason I say this is because some games are NOT optimized for ATi cards. One of my favorite games Street Fighter 4 runs worse on high settings on the 5870M than on the 260M with max settings and 8xAA. I have tested this on 3 G73JH-05 models and 1 G73JH-A1 model and with Asus default, 10.3 and Pre-10.4 drivers. This lack of optimzation was what I was worried about in some games with ATi as oppossed to Nvidia. But oh well for the most part most of my games perform better by about 15-20 frames.

In Crysis/Crysis Warhead I get a respective 55 to lower 32 frames per second. I've tested this with Fraps running on my Logitech G13. It displays frames per second on it's lcd while in game.

http://www.logitech.com/en-us/keyboards/keyboard/devices/5123

I also agree that if you have a G71GX, G51 or G60 the 5870M is NOT that big of a difference.

But the i7 is truly amazing for multitasking purposes.

At this time I don't believe there is a way of identifiying the LG screen from the outside of the box

I agree with you on your choice not to upgrade to the G73. Your specs are already close enough.

The thing about Bad Company 2 is that once you start adding 4xAA+, AF & HBAO the G73JH's(5870M) 1920 x 1080 definitely shows it's limitations. I've also noticed that the 5870M has more screen tearing artifacts than the GTX260M in Bad Company 2. This maybe due to drivers. I've seen sooo many G73JH's with screen tear in Bad Company 2....what's funny is that Bad Company 2 is sponsored by AMD/ATi. Or maybe it's the G73JH's screen refresh rate.

Here's an example
thank you QuagmireLXIX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FhR4jCpyM

In this example there is No screen tearing but the G73JH has an i5 at 1600 x 900...hmmmm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfWBj7v4m6U


Alot of 1920 x 1020 users argue that AA makes no difference at 1920 x 1080. But that's total BS. If it made no difference then it would be greyed out by the developer. I'll always find myself upgrading every year because AA is important to me

 

OMG I would never use AA and AF on bad company haha, it completely kills me regardless of resolution Well not true, I do use 4x AF.

As for AA, it does work and does make a difference even at 1920x1080. I use it for games like Left 4 Dead because it helps make the game completely jaggy free

The thing is, the impact (visual) of AA at 1920x1080 is less pronounced compared to AA in a low resolution like 1440x810 or 1366x768. If I play on lower res, I up the AA to 4 or more x, but at 1920x1080, even with 2x AA i am good to go. And yes, it is noticeable when the game as AA or not. Even at 2560 res!

 

I don't know if this is a known issue, but v-sync doesn't work in BC2, atleast not on my desktop (which sports the ati 5870).
What's weird is that it doesn't show on the 1600x900 screen, so i might be wrong.
It's also possible that notebook-journal use D3doverrider (like i do to get working v sync) while quagmirelxix doesn't.
Just wanted to point that out so people don't think there's a screen tearing issue with the 1080p screen.
I have not followed the discussion or read about there being an issue, just wanted to point that out

 

I have BF:BC2 and I use V-Sync at 1600 x 900. It does help. But it's still there. Just not as bad as the videos I've seen. D3doverrider causes my G73JH to freeze in MW2


UPDATE: In the past I tried rivaturner that had D3Doverrider as an option. I googled D3Doverrider and downloaded the stand alone program. It works great!! Thanks for the heads up!!

 

I got lucky

I exchanged my laptop for a different one at best buy, which was way harder than it should have been... I made up a problem to avoid the restocking fee.

Not only did I get the MUCH BETTER lg display (I noticed the difference right away), but I also still have the 1333 ram that I had before which I was worried about losing!

Definitely worth the 1 hour of waiting and watching the geek squad guys argue with their boss on whether I should be able to exchange it or not even though I had bought the laptop a week prior.

 

Well instead of arguing about the whole "more fps at lower resolution" why don't you guys run the resident evil benchmark or something and see what you get at 1600x900, and the other guy run re5 benchmark with 1920x1080. Try it at 8xaa highest settings though. I think to be fair though, higher resolutions don't require as much AA as lower resolutions to look good. So maybe the guy with the 1080p should try running 2xaa...and see if he sees much difference than 8xaa. That might help with fps too. I did run RE5 at 1600x900 8xaa max settings before I returned the g73, and I remember getting 67fps average in the variable benchmark.

I don't want to gamble at BB and see which one I get. I'm starting to think it would be easier. Also thinking about getting a rewards card this time before making that big purchase.

 

You don't need to test anything, its COMMON SENSE that 1600x900 will get always get higher fps compared to being played at 1920x1080. And it will always be higher in a few years from now too.

Testing what will get higher fps is like measuring with a ruler between an obviously big elephant and a human.

 

Would I get better performance out the G73 by adding another memory module for a total of 8gb? I heard somewhere else that I would actually get better performance by taking out 2gb of ram so that only 2 slots in to take advantage of the dual channel i7 thing. You would think that adding memory would increase performance so that memory swapping doesn't occur. What does dual channel mean anyway? Assuming dual channel is what I think it is, wouldn't having the computer run out of memory be much worse? Sorry for the load of questions, I just got into PC gaming after envying the graphics that my PS3 couldn't provide.

If it would increase performance would this memory work:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148316

I hear crucial is the way to go, hopefully it would be worth the slight premium.

 

Nice. So you just took a gamble. What if you ended up with the auo the 2nd time around though, lol. I'm not willing to take that chance. I'd rather get the TD model and then just "upgrade" the 1080p screen to the "LG 1600x900" screen. I'd really like to use a wuxga screen similar to those found on HP monitors.

When I returned mine, I just told them that the screen was terrible, and that on first boot, I got strange artifacts(which was actually true). When I first got it, It had weird artifacts during boot, but it wasn't from the graphics card, it seemed more like some kind of interference with the screen and another component maybe? But it only did it once on boot up, and went away.

 

Yah but by how much fps are we talking about here? That's what I would like to know. If it's just 3 fps then it wouldn't be a big deal to me. Also it would be nice to hear opinions of 1080p with 2xaa, vs 1080p 8xaa, and the fps difference. We all know that at higher resolutions, you don't need much AA for the the game to look as good as a lower resolution screen with a lot of AA.

 

It's funny seeing Asus owners bicker about screen quality. IMO the displays Asus uses suck. If you want to see a beautiful screen, try looking at an M17x-R2 RGB LED that's calibrated sometime..your jaws will drop.

 

I appreciate your honesty Most users of 1920 x 1080 would argue all day about how AA makes no difference at 1920 x 1080. I also have 2 Sammy LED 240Hz 1080P HDTV's in my home that I have hooked up my G73JH through HDMI. It looks nice but runs slower than my G73JH's native res of 1600 x 900 at the same settings.

 

Your jaws will also drop when u see the price for M17x... anyways , this is Asus and not alienware.. go and boast about ur Alienware on the Alienware lounge.. here , we ppl are happy with what we have...

 

Hey man. You see, that's what I'm talking about. I'm thinking getting the asus g73 with the 1080p screen...then selling the 1080p screen..and putting a better screen in there. Would the monitor on that alienware be compatible with the asus g73? I'm talking about just switching out the lcd screen of course, not the bezel and everything else.