95% gamut displays and Intel Wireless chipsets??

I'm shopping for a new 15.6" laptop and I have a couple questions about some of the upgrade options I'm consistently seeing.

Since my beloved 1900x1200 resolution is apparently now extinct, I'm looking for something with a 1920x1080 screen (i.e., full HD, 1080p, or whatever it's called). By my calculation that's 10 percent fewer pixels but I guess I have to deal with it. So I'm set on 1920x1080, but I don't know what kind of 1920x1080 screen to get. Most manufacturers (ASUS, Sager, MSI, etc.) seem to offer some type of *enhanced* 1920x1080 display for an extra $75-$175. I see the terms "ultra bright," "anti-glare," and "95% NTSC gamut" bandied about frequently. Is there really any noticeable difference? To provide some specifics, the laptop I'm currently leaning towards is the ASUS N56VZ-DS71. Is it worth the extra money to upgrade the display, or will I be just as well off with the regular 1920x1080?

I have a similar question about the various wireless chipsets most manufacturers offer. What's the difference between (1) standard 802.11 a/b/g/n wireless, (2) Intel Advanced-N 6235 Wireless-N, (3) Intel Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250, (4) Intel Ultimate-N 6300, and (5) Bigfoot networks Killer Wireless-N 1103? Will I get better reception with one than another? The price difference between all of them is only about $20-$60. I'm primarily concerned with getting the best one, if in fact there is a noticeable performance difference.

Thanks in advance.

 

I'll try to answer your screen questions and leave the wireless questions to someone more knowledgeable in that area.

Anti-glare: This means "matte". Whether or not you should get this boils down to whether or not you like glossy screens.

95% NTSC gamut: This means that the screen can show far more colors than an average screen (which is 72% NTSC in theory, but more like 45-60% in practice) can. This may or may not be a good thing, because it has the potential to make your images look very beautiful and lifelike, but on the other hand it takes time and money in the form of monitor calibration to make it look that way.

Ultra bright: Could mean a billion things. This term isn't standardized amongst different manufacturers unlike the other 2 terms.

In summary, yes, there is a noticeable difference But the situation isn't as simple as more expensive = better.

 

I only have a 92% Glossy screen and you'll see a big difference when it comes to color quality. I always notice it when I'm using my friend's 72% Gamut laptop screen.

 

Screens: The 95% panel is the AUO V4, not only are colours vibrant but it offers the best contrast and viewing angles of non-IPS panels (which are in very specific machines and none of them gaming orientated).

Wireless: The bigfoot cards offer the best battery consumption and signal but don't include wimax or bluetooth if you need those (bluetooth can be added as a separate module to some machines).

 

Interesting. I see most of the manufacturers offer calibration for an extra $50-$100. I assumed this was like buying "special" undercoating from a car dealership. What's involved in the calibration, how long does it take, and could I do it myself? I gather it's more involved than running an app and clicking a few buttons.

 

You have to buy a device (screen calibrator) and run a program. It will shift over time so to keep it accurate you run it every so often.

 

Wow. That sounds like a lot more trouble than it's worth for me. I take it these displays are strictly aimed at professional graphics designers and video editors then? Seems like overkill for normal use, even gaming.

 

Do you have to calibrate the screen ? Also how is the ultimate-n wireless listed above?

 

You can buy a Spyder 3 Pro and calibrate your LCD. I can tell you my R2's RGBLED screen oblierates most screens out there and has great viewing angles.

 

But is no longer made. Even if you dont calibrate it the v4 is a cut above the rest.

 

The calibrator is more than the screen? Are there any cheaper options or free online ones? Also if I don't calibrate it, will the upgraded screen nt make a difference?

 

Try reading what I posted.

 

Sorry, the page thing messed me up, don't see it. K, I'll probally get it than (sorry again)

 

If calibration costs $100, buy a used Spyder 3 Pro for less than $100. You will have to calibrate regularly and if you just get the screen calibrated if you reformat and forget to backup the calibration, it's lost, unless the manufacturer/reseller gave you the calibration profile in some other form of media that you didn't lose.

 

Are there any other cheaper calibrates other than spyder 3? Already past my original budget; any under 75?

 

Why not get the screen and see if you need it?

 

I probally will, but if I could get it before I actually received the screen it would of been a plus. Thanks for helping