Best notebook screens currently available

I'm trying to compile a list of the best screens, this is what I have so far, if you can add some that I'm missing, please post it here:

11" = Apple Macbook Air 11.6
12" = Lenovo X201, Lenovo X220 (with IPS screen)
13" = Sony VAIO Z, Envy 13 (with Radiance), Apple Macbook Air 13.3, Macbook Pro 13
14" = Envy 14 (with Radiance)
15" = HP 8540w/8560w (with Dreamcolor), Macbook Pro 15, Dell Precision M4500 (with RGB screen), Dell XPS 15 (full HD screen)
16" = Sony VAIO F and VAIO F 3D (with Premium screen), Dell XPS 16 (with RGB screen)
17" = HP 8740w/8760w (with Dreamcolor), Macbook Pro 17, Alienware M17x (with RGB screen), Dell Precision M6500 (with RGB screen)

 

- Alienware m17x with RGB LED. (17")
- Thinkpad X200 AFFS Flexview, manual upgrade screen: http://forum.notebookreview.com/len...s-x200affs-x200-equipped-flexview-screen.html (12.1")

Also, whatever iPad has, looks great.

 

Thanks, iPad is not on the list, since it's not a notebook.

 

The HP 8740w dreamcolor-2 screen is the best one (its IPS); AFAIK, there is no screen of that quality.

The Dell Precision M6500 also has a 17" RGBLED screen (same as the Alienware).
The 15.6" dell precision might also have a RGBLED (not sure)

 

Yeah, Dreamcolor is best, no doubt...

 

The normal Macbook should be on the list too in my opinion. Not many notebooks deliver a contrast of 791:1. ( source)

While the Macbook Airs have excellent contrast and brightness, their gamut isn't very large. They should still be on the list though, I agree.



Apple's 2010 MacBook Air (11 & 13 inch) Thoroughly Reviewed - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

Good work by the way. Next time someone asks this question we can point them to this thread.

 

Thanks, great to see most of them on the list already.

 

If it has a glossy screen, its trash

 

Yeah, but actually the new Macbook Airs screens are not as glossy as the MacBooks.

 

I got the Macbook Air this weekend. The screen is almost matte. It's so matte, I don't like it that much. I prefer glossy screens.

 

Really? I prefer matte anytime, but the new Macbook Air screen is really nice...for a glossy.

 

I had to look again, but yeah with daylight it looks more glossy.

At night it looks like a matte screen, a bit dull.

 

If you shut down the notebook and look at the screen and see yourself, then it's glossy, but the new macbook air is much less glossy than others I have seen, well done Apple, I wish PC makers could do the same.

 

Thinkpads are as matte as they can be. Though not as good in quality. But they are good for work.

iPad is not anything (well OK next gen e-book reader if you will), just mentioned as the screen quality is superior to the ones you see on *most* laptops.

 

What are we ranking the screens by? Colors? Black depths? Viewing angles? Brightness? A mix of the above? If so, what takes precedence?

I suppose you might as well fit in Fujitsu's mva panels. As cheaper alternatives to IPS they're really good(160 viewing angle).

Might also wanna include the Lenovo Flexview screens.

 

You can't rate screen quality by colour gamut. Its a popular myth that wide gamut is always better but sRGB is such a deeply ingrained standard that most things that people are likely to view at the consumer level will be designed for viewing in sRBG colour space - most internet pages, consumer level digital cameras, scanners, most consumer grade printers etc.

Unless you work in a colour controlled environment, aRBG can sometimes completely throw you off so your prints don't look anywhere like they do on screen and some webpages can look massively oversaturated. Really you are supposed to switch between standard and wide gamut when it becomes necessary to work within the appropriate colour space but thats something that graphics professionals are going to do, not regular joes like me. Most users that aren't photoshop hounds won't be using any printers or scanners or cameras that can capture even the full sRGB space.

Dell U2311H is a good example of a (desktop) display that is standard gamut and excellent so hopefully that alone should put to rest the idea that wider gamut = better. It would not be a better monitor if it did have a wide gamut. It would just be a different tool for a different job.

I think the most important things in a notebook screen for consumers are the ones that fulfill the most basic needs of someone on the go and its shocking how few actually do that.

For me, I want to be able to take my computer everywhere so it needs to be viewable in brightly lit environments which means it either needs a bright enough backlight to overpower reflections in a glossy screen or it needs a matte finish or anti reflective coating.

Viewing angles are the great weakness of TN panels but again, many people will tend to look at the computer centred. If you are likely to look at your notebook off axis alot (like if its mounted over a piano keyboard or you like to watch movies with a buddy on either side of you on the coach) then viewing angles become an issue.

For gaming, response time is an issue but not as big as is commonly made out. If you are playing a game at 60 frames per second, an input lag time of less than 17ms is going to be less than 1 frame. If 1 frame is going to mess up your aim consistently, then how do you deal with framerate dips? Put another way, I record my own music and my ASIO buffer is currently set to 512 samples at 44.1khz which equates to a lag time of 11.6ms. This is not big enough to impair my sense of timing and I record with this lag all the time. It is not a detriment so the people claiming to be put off Guitar Hero by >5ms display input lag are massively exaggerating the problem when I'm recording a real guitar no problems with at least twice as much lag.

Contrast ratio? The number by itself is often meaningless and if you are viewing in an environment with more light than pitch darkness it means even less. That said it is something you can notice at extremes so sure why not? I'd like a display thats capable of really black blacks and whiter than whites.

Pixel pitch? I admit I find that I like smaller displays with huge resolution because everything looks so sharp up until the point where you have problems reading text though DPI scaling has to some degree eliminated that problem.

Actually it turns out that the minimum requirement for a good screen for most people is a surprisingly low standard. For me all it needs is to be capable of reasonably high resolution relative to display size, have moderate horizontal viewing angles and a bright, evenly lit display area. It needs to have some sort of anti reflective finish or enough brightness to compensate for reflections. Everything else to me is more or less down to taste or a requirement for a specific type of work.

It is also surprising how many notebooks do not have these qualities in a screen and instead settle for dim, low resolution and glossy. But they boast of massive dynamic contrast ratios and <3ms input lag when these things are almost totally irrelevant. As always the only real test is to see the screen in person and decide for yourself whether its something you can tolerate looking at for several hours a day. Whether its actually a pleasant experience. This of course is highly subjective so I do not doubt for a minute that other people have a very different idea of what makes a good screen. I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

e-book readers do not use LCD technology

Yes the issue with viewing angles is actually a matter of other people looking at the screen.
This is a pretty big deal if you aren't a geek like us and actually use computers for practical things

I have to disagree with you here...

People deal with framerate dips by A) compensating to have a higher average but mostly by B) not having to deal with it - constantly! Thats why its a dip.

A constant 17ms lag is totally 100% noticeable...

Yep.
Of course you wont notice that while recording a guitar.

I don't record music. I do what may be called more "realtime" work. I use a firewire interface at 96khz and around 4ms lag.
Think more along the lines of hitting a jazz ride pattern (swing beats) on the play button with a clip cut for a sharp attack.
Its an incredibly subtle thing, but its also glaringly and obviously fake. I'm not anywhere near professional either, but I really notice anything above 5ms latency.

If/when your computer is your instrument or preamp, and you are doing rhythmic work, you will notice it. Try monitoring with isolation headphones and playing an electric guitar.
You may get totally used to it and it will feel fine, and then if you take the headphones off... lets just say you'll have to readjust.

In my opinion, all the numbers are meaningless. Like CPU frequencies which are totally subjective to the temperature they run at.

Generally I've found that the more fundamental to the system or to the user the part gets, the more basic analog elements are there effecting it.
Trying to quantify such things are simply the struggles/mad ravings of humanity.
In other words.
When I see HP or Sonys laptop described as having a 600:1 contrast ratio display, I think of it only as that; "Oh, Sony says their screens are 600:1"
Maybe they tell the truth and maybe not. And at the same time, "Oh, so apparently 'contrast ratio' is some legitimate certified precise measurement of contrast"
Maybe thats real, maybe it isn't

 

It's color gamut: number of colors in billions/30 bit.

That's the best for the aforementioned reason. And typically the single best gauge of overall quality and performance.

 

So I checked HP parts store to see the HP 8540w screen part, comes alone nicely at $606 US. I think that rules out the chance of me buying one of those to replace my current one. Haha

 

hey you asked what was the best, and well its the DC2 screen bar none in the 8540W and 8740W. the price is steep but WOW!!!

spec

Some info from HP regarding the screen:
Contrast Ratio 800:1 typical
Brightness 210 nit typical
Backlight RGB LED
Viewing Angle ±89° Horizontal, ±89° Vertical (typical)
Technology Type 30-bit In-Plane Switching (IPS)
Color Depth 10-bits/color
Display Colors Over 1 billion colors (native mode)

Color Gamut Coverage CIE1931 (x,y) CIE 1976 (u',v')
NTSC 109% 129%
AdobeRGB 114% 127%
sRGB 154% 148%

Pictiures
http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-news-reviews/503121-hp-8740w-review-full-metal-jacket.html

 

It's probably a good screen but contrast rates supplied by manufacturers are often far from the truth.

 

Whats the model on the 8540w DC2 LCD? And its for sure IPS as well?

I can almost feel myself modding it onto a w860cu already...

 

I dont have any info on the 8540W's panel ID and model, yes the DC2 IPS Panel is an upgrade option for it. as for moding one not easy, its a completly different interface, Akimox is trying to figure how to load one into an M17X

 

Viewing angles on most notebooks are so bad that the top and bottom of the screen look "off axis" when you are looking at the screen centered. Only the middle of the screen looks good.

 

Hence the IPS screens we have been discussing. 178 degree viewing angles. but downside is expensive and a slightly slower refresh speed.

 

Asus G73Jh/Jw (1080p only)

If you're gonna count netbooks (might as well, there aren't many good ones):
Asus 1005HA
Asus 1001P
Asus 1016P

I haven't seen any formal reviews on these panels but given their lineage they should be good - may be worth looking into further:
Dell XPS 15 (RGB-LED)
Dell XPS 17 (RGB-LED)
HP Envy 17 (w/ 1080p) - maybe
Sony EC-series (w/ 1080p) - maybe
Asus N73 (w/ 1080p) - very iffy

 

Correction: These new systems have "B+RG LED" screens, not RGBLED. I'm under the impression that it's similar to WLED, and it's color gamut is <=90% (vs. <=120% for RGBLED on older SXPS 16 models).

 

Mmm, it's probably impossible to mod the DC2 screen into anything else. It has a bunch of specialized electronics that go with it.

The screen is HP-specific.

That's correct. The newer displays in the Dell XPS notebooks must be cheaper than the old ones; they have Blue and Red/Green combination LEDs instead of separate R, B, and G. Still, it is a better solution than most notebooks on the market.

Most notebooks use blue LEDs, I believe, to backlight the display, which really messes with color reproduction. Nearly all of the notebooks I tested recently have very washed-out/cold hue screens.

 

No, they're not blue LED's - they're just (non) calibrated that way to make themselves jump out at users when they're shown on the store shelves.

A blue screen looks brighter and seems more vivid than a properly calibrated monitor.

They are also harder to stare at for a long time.

 

Is there any way these IPS laptop displays HP is apparently getting custom made by LG are based on something simpler such as a TTL interface?

Someone has got to be able to get in there with a multimeter... Its still going to have R,G,B clocks...

 

Maybe, but don't forget that these are 10-bit screens, compared to the usual 6-bit TN, or even the 8-bit expanded gamut RGB TN screens in some notebooks (like the M6500, or the W701, or maybe the M17x). When the 8740w first came out, there were worries that the M7820 wouldn't be able to support a 10-bit screen, so you have to worry about 10-bit support on your graphics card as well. Also, when the 8740w first came out, W7 Aero didn't work with the IPS screen in 10-bit mode. So, as you can see, there's a lot of extra stuff involved beyond just the connector.

 

Gorgeous class leading display. Chunky industrial design chassis.

 

I have a desktop IPS screen (U2311H). Admittedly its one of the cost saver IPS panels but I preferred the screen in the F series and I kind of wish they would make a bigger version of it for desktops. The viewing angles on the U2311H are good but the bad thing about it is the contrast shift that occurs on dark colours, most notably black. Looking directly at a black screen, the top right and bottom left are inverting right now and they look...purple/pink/gray. Its hard to describe but is apparently not uncommon in some IPS type displays. Its very disconcerting and I regard it as more off putting than the limited viewing angles of the F series screen.

 

the DC2 panel is the little brother of the HPLP2480zx external screen which has been widly loved by graphics pros for years. strangly enough you can hardware calibrate it to match a high end Eizo which will cost you as much as the entire laptop.

and just to give you a hard time, the lower end dells are pretty funky on blacks. and your external panel is a 6 bit color unit with 82% gamut .... the HP screen here CALIBRATES at 150% rgb and 129% NTSC with full 10 bit color

I own the same monitor as you and ya .... the HP laptop kicks this screen as well as my older HP panel for quality BADLY

 

Envy 17 3D has a very clear and bright screen

 

What is the best screen under 1000,- euro ($ 1400)?

Thanks Jan

 

darn good question lol.
Can we see any NON boutique laptops with pretty good screens?

 

HP isn't boutique... and neither is Dell (if it's true that the new M6600 will have an IPS panel). But under $1400, only if you are lucky enough to find a HP refurb. Even then, it might not be under $1400.

 

boutique = 'mobile workstation' in my book.

 

Maybe if HP can source Radiance screens again for the Envy. The problem is that we seem to be pretty much at the mercy of screen suppliers, so much like the change to 16:9, getting a good screen for a non-ridiculous price is probably not going to happen.

 

For 15", you're probably talking about the Au Optronics "B+RG LED" panels B156HW01 v4 (matte) found in the Lenovo W510 (not < 1000 euro) or B156HW01 v7 (glossy) found in the Dell XPS 15 (maybe < 1000 euro?) or available as a custom mod on Sager/Clevo 15" systems from Mythlogic (< $1400 for the NP5160 equivalent with the v4 screen). I believe there's a similar 17" panel that has 90% gamut. Check this or this for more info.

 

Ok maybe a re-phrase of my question would be better. Which notebook has the best screen i can get for between 1000 - 1350 euro?

Thanks Jan

 

Well, currently you can still buy the Dell XPS 16 (with RGB screen) within that price range, it's actually the cheapest highend screen you can buy, as far as I know...

I'm still considering the HP 8540w with Dreamcolor, doesn't get better than that...

 

Thanks Wii,

Any other options?

Thanks Jan

 

its not input lag that is the issue. its the response time of the pixels. Its the "ghosting" effect that messes up games. Also viewing angles? most laptops i see i move 15 degrees in any angle and there is a noticeable change. my g51j blows and my roomates dell is horrific. Also ur 11.6ms input lag is easily fix able. Granted its not really worth worries about but all you need to adjust is sound drives to put a 10ms lag onto ur sound. Also as i said its not input lag its pixel response times. Seeing 2-3 images on the screen at once is not cool

EDIT: contrast is also very important too. granted there is a point of where its not a "big" deal but some screens just blow. No one likes to have a white black in a dark movie/game that gray black is such a mood killer. I am blind as a bat and i can see most of these things in 99% of screens so if i got like 200/20 vision and can see this stuff than it is a terrible screen. Yes i can't read what the street sign says until i am in the intersection and i do alot of u-turns lol

 

Yeah, look at the first post of this thread, I have collected some of the best screens currently available.

 

Cool thread!

Can you guys check if your screen passes this simple vertical viewing angle test I posted about here and report back in that thread?

I don't have any of the notebooks mentioned in the first post here, but I hope all of them pass this test.

 

Sure, I just posted...I'm glad other people also think about quality of screens...

 

Thanks Wii,

Maybe it would be nice to have some kind of price listed with these in the first post?

Jan

 

Prices vary from region to region, so that's impossible...