Are there really only two 15.6" G-Sync capable laptop displays?

I'm using my laptop for gaming, and have read too much awesome stuff about G-sync to not get it. However, I'm getting a 15.6", and I decided not to get a 4K since in my opinion, the extra resource taxation is not worth the visual difference with a screen size of 15.6". Does this really only leave me with one display option??

1) LG LP156WF6-SPB1 Specs Here
2) Samsung LTN156FL02-101 Specs Here (this is the only G-sync capable 4k I know of, but since I don't want 4k I ruled it out)

The reason I'm asking is because those LG specs seem to be below average from what I've seen in other displays. When more G-sync laptop screens are released, is it possible to replace this screen myself? I'm getting a Sager NP9758-S if that makes a difference.

 

What's below average about it? And yes it's easy to swap out.

 

Currently, yes there are only two G-SYNC 15.6" displays available.

The LG is not below-average. 300nits, 72% NTSC, 92% sRGB. How's that bad? It's actually one of the best 15.6" IPS-type panels available.

This review covered that exact panel.

I mean, it's no 99% sRGB WQHD UltraSharp monitor, but as far as laptop screens goes, it's fairly good.

 

Didn't say it was a bad screen, just that it's below avg compared to not only other currently releasing screens at its price point (albeit those screens aren't g sync capable), but also it is slightly worse spec'd than its AUO predecessors. I'm talking black level, about 40-50% higher, contrast ratio of 700 vs the 1100 that is common now, higher gamma and lower color space, slightly smaller viewing angles but 80 is still good. There's 5ms IPS panels and this one is 25ms... Again, I'm not saying it's a bad screen... Just that it is below avg spec wise

 

If you're talking desktop LCD's then sure. But I don't know of any laptop LCD's with those specs you mentioned. I don't believe any 5ms laptop LCD's exist. I believe the best laptop IPS LCD response times have been 16ms. Response time is so questionable though, because I can run LCD at 100Hz G-sync and no ghosting whatsoever even though mine is spec'd at 25ms well.

 

Those specs come from the AUO panel that I mentioned which was standard in some of the older models, the B156HAN01.2. In its spec sheet, it looks to be the same stats as the G-Sync LG screen, except that it has a sleight 5 degrees greater viewing angle. But in tests, it got between 1000 and 1250 C/R pretty consistently, along with the other better stats I mentioned (except the response time, it was also 25ms like the LG). Tests of the LG panel however show it is spec'd correctly. The AUO also seems to have better grayscale.

Anyway, the real reason for my thread was just to determine if screen could be upped later, which you answered, so thank you.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about numerical specs of different displays. They don't really tell you much. A display with 5ms response time isn't "twice as good" as a display with 10ms response time.

For laptop screens, you only need a display that is "good enough". And as others have said, this panel is pretty good for IPS G-Sync panels; and will be "good enough" for what you need to do with it.

 

Thanks for the input but I'm not paying $2300 for a laptop that I will be content saying has a "good enough" screen haha, I don't have a desktop so this serves as my only PC, so I would have to ask: good enough compared to what? If we're talking "good enough" compared to other screens, I don't think a panel that is lesser in many aspects than its predecessor would fall under the guidelines of "good enough", at least in my opinion. But to each his own. I'm content with the answer that I can upgrade the panel down the line.

 

There are more G-sync CAPABLE screens... but without certification, their capabilities mean nothing. There are only two CERTIFIED screens right now.

That's the problem right there. IPS is taking over the market and the screens aren't good for IPS, and TN panels have em beat from way before except maybe in viewing angles.

And this is the problem. There's almost no good screens for sale considering screens on the whole. My 120Hz panel is a good screen all-round. Not top of the line, but it even holds its own against decent desktop panels. IPS panels in laptops are a straight downgrade. I can understand why the specs are putting him off.

 

You're way too focused on data sheet specs. I've owned laptops with both these panels, and I couldn't tell the difference between the two, beyond the brightness. The LG is essentially the same from an end-user experience compared to the AUO. Besides, the AUO's specs aren't really that much better.

"Good enough" is used comparatively to other laptop displays. And actually, compared to most other laptop displays on the market, that LG is really good. You'd be surprised at the sheer volume of junk panels out there.

Besides, these are laptop displays, and you'll always be disappointed if your frame of reference is a desktop display.

And remember, listed viewing angles don't really mean much. TN panels have listed viewing angles of 60, but as soon as you're even a few degrees off centre, colours start to shift immediately. In practice, most TN panels have viewing angles of, like, 5. Anything beyond that, colours start to shift.

 

TN panels also suffer from poor contrast, they always look washed out to me, even those with decent viewing angles, like my Asus P278Q. It's a nice panel, but I miss having IPS after I switch from my laptop to desktop screen. I wouldn't say IPS is a straight downgrade by any means. If you're looking for a very high refresh and very low response, then TN is the way to go. But if you want good contrast, viewing angles, and overall better images, IPS is the way to go and I find the laptop screens more than adequate for gaming. No ghosting or any concerns whatsoever. I think 75Hz is bare minimum refresh, and 90-100Hz would be preferable, but the 1080p 15" and 17" IPS panels in laptops I've reviewed/owned could be overclocked to at least 90Hz.

 

Better in what ways? Beyond faster refresh rates/response times, there isn't really any advantage to TN panels. IPS have better colour, viewing angles and equal contrast ratios these days.

I looked up the specs of older TN panels, such as the ones offered on the Eurocom X8.

LP173WF2-TPA1
B173HW01 V4

Not really a whole lot better than, say, the 17" LG 173WF4-SPF1 used by the G-SYNC laptops on sale today.

There's a reason no professional who works in photo/video editing or the likes uses TN panels.

Laptop screens do indeed present a problem. My Dell UltraSharp is as big, and contains about as much electronics, as a regular laptop. Because that's what's required to produce the kind of crisp images it does.

It's not IPS panels in laptops that are a straight downgrade - it's ALL of them, if your basis for comparison is a good desktop monitor. There's only so much you can do with a thin panel.

 

My focus is on data sheet specs because honestly that's all I have, I don't own laptops with either screen. So for me, the specs transcend subjective opinion in that things one person doesn't notice might be noticed by others. For instance, I can tell you from my own experience that I very easily see a difference between a screen with 700:1 CR and 1100:1 CR. And im only comparing laptop displays here, and only IPS displays, so i don't know who brought up desktop or TN but it wasn't me.

 

Specs are OK, but best to get it from review because despite reported specs they aren't always accurate or don't necessarily represent the visual quality of the LCD. Best to find a laptop that has display you're interested in and find a review on notebookcheck.net. They usually have a great breakdown/analysis of that particular LCD. Like, for example, the 17" LCD in the P870DM-G I just reviewed the specs showed 300 brightness and 700:1 contrast ratio. I measured 320 brightness and 850:1 contrast.

 

This is exactly how I did my analysis of the screens in comparing the current display to its AUO predecessor. On paper the specs are the same, but in review on notebookcheck the AUO wins by a significant margin.

 

Agreed... Look at the notebookcheck.net reviews when comparing LCD's.. One pretty good source

 

Myes, the AUO wins the reviews (both are IPS-type, mind).

Now, as D2 Ultima mentioned, non G-Sync approved ≠ non G-Sync capable. Certification is mainly a ploy by nvidia to milk customers. However, the AUO would not have been certified anyway; production pre-dates certification for one, but mainly it's an eDP 1.1 panel and certification requires 1.2. Thing is, it's a protocol, not the physical interface that is different. The wires and pins are the same and chance is good the AUO will do G-Sync just as well as the approved panels. Only problem is how to trick the gpu and driver; either change the panel id (edid) or flash a modded bios+vbios that contains the AUO edid among the white-list.

Made an AUO B156HAN01.2 G-Sync approved edid, if you care to try:
AUO12ED - B156HAN01.2 - G-Sync approved.7z

Flash it and you have G-Sync (provided gpu/vbios are G-Sync approved as well). Quite simple, really; change manufacturer and part id to an approved one and make the primary timings 75 Hz. Left secondary to 60 Hz, just in case.

 

Mine is g sync Panasonic 3k

I can't look at the specs for you but odds are it's top dog.

 

It is also in a rare msi notebook. So look up the panel in the aorus x5. It is not the same 3k in the gigabyte p35w


It is probably very expensive.

 

This panel is gsync enabled???? LG LP156WF6-SPB1 I had no idea..i have one lying around, areyou saying if i put this panel on my gs63VR ill have gsync enabled?

 

Hi,

How do I change panel id? Can't find any info online on doing that.

Thanks

 

As @D2 Ultima and @t456 have pointed out, being G-Stink capable or "certified" and having G-Stink functional are two different things. I you install a non-stock G-Stink capable panel on a system that even already had it, chances are good that you will not have it functional. The Green Goblin has gone overboard in taking active steps to break this on laptops to ensure that upgrading and bypassing the licensing ransom fees is close to impossible. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it and there would be computer shops selling G-Stink laptops that were never certified by the NVIDIOTS and no fees paid. All of the stars have to be aligned, and even the system BIOS requires alteration when using a specific panel on a pre-approved configuration on NGREEDIA's whitelist. So, special panel + special GPU + special firmware. If any one of those things is off from the approved prerequisite spec, no G-Stink.

 

Wow, this is a necro thread.

By the way, Nvidia told me they don't sell non-gsync vBIOSes/etc anymore. Anyone selling you non-gsync capable units with a gsync panel AND the Nvidia GPU as the dGPU (either MUX switch present or not) is doing it on purpose.

 

All attempts using software failed on the modern platforms (change in gpus). Could do hardware flashing with a programmer, but these firmware chips are excruciatingly tiny so it's roughly effort-squared vs. a regular hardware (v)bios flash, give or take.

Could do that for you, if you like. Only need to pay shipping both ways and start a thread once successful.

 

Thanks for super fast reply on such necro thread

The guy that sold me the laptop said that the screen was switched to AUO B156HAN01.2 but the monitor asset manager and device manager are claiming its CMN15D3. Can that be incorrect? The screen looks very good but there is quite a bit of bleeding, guess I have to open up the screen to know for sure.

The laptop is g sync enabled so I tried to use files posted by t456 but unsuccessfully so far.

Thanks for the offer man, that's really nice but I but g sync is not that much of a deal for me
Thanks

 

One way is to look at the sticker on the back, yes. Though of course that too could be tampered with if anyone bothers to go that far. The pcb is often labeled as well, so that might be another thing to check out.

'CMN' is Chi Mei, so that is indeed a bit odd. Normally Windows will automatically detect the new screen and update the registry values accordingly; Monitor Asset Manager looks at the registry entries as well on most Windows versions, so it's not getting its information directly from the panel. You could force it to re-detect the new panel by uninstalling it via Device Manager and hitting ' Scan for hardware changes'. Do make a full image backup then, just in case ...

If the bleed is only on the edges then it's likely only the bezel that clips too forcefully on the lcd. That can be fixed by removing the bezel and sanding away the offending areas on the inside edge that touches the screen. If the bleed is in the centre then there's little to be done.

And would agree with you and @Mr. Fox ; g-sync/stink is a tad overrated (simple high refresh rates do not rely on or need g-sync). It isn't that big a change and AMD provides this technology for free. If Nvidia would've been less greedy about this then it would just be a nice '+' selling point instead of the hyped 'must-have' as pushed by their marketing department. Would guess their expense division to be something like 5% development, 95% marketing+lawyers.

 

Thanks a lot