Ideal "minimum" color gamut for average consumer?

I often see the advice "if you're a professional photo or video editor, get a display with wide color gamut." I'm neither of those things, but I do have a gaming laptop with 86% sRGB. I'm currently looking at getting a cheaper laptop as a daily driver (word processing, reading, PowerPoint creation, watching videos), and I've found one that I like in every way--except its display offers 57% sRGB. I haven't seen the display to judge it myself.

But my question is this: is there an ideal "minimum" color gamut that even an average consumer shouldn't go below? Specifically curious about sRGB, but also wondering about AbodeRGB and NTSC. And when comparing two screens, is a 30% drop in sRGB (or AbobeRGB or NTSC) likely to be noticed by pretty much everyone as a ghastly drop in quality, or is it really something only video/photo editors would notice?

Thanks!

 

I would say what you have, at or close to full sRGB coverage, is the minimum. Because the panels that are significantly below that are just low-grade, with not only washed out colors, but usually also poor brightness and/or contrast, as well as poor viewing angles (if TN).

 

Color gamut is something that is easily noticed only when compared to something better, for most people. With your gaming notebook to compare to, it will be noticeable. How much so depends on you (it seems you may be okay with this downgrade).

What is more noticeable, even for laypersons, is the contrast ratio instead.

Do you have any info on your current platform and the new one you're considering? What is the price of the new system and what are your requirements/uses of it? Others may be able to offer something better that they've actually used or at least seen.

 

100% sRGB/72% AdobeRGB should be minimum nowadays.

I prefer 100% AdobeRGB displays but not many out there in these laptops.

 

@yrekabakery, @tilleroftheearth, @ssj92 - thanks for your insights. I was afraid that would be the answer, but better to know than to blindly buy a product on the internet and then be unhappy with the results.

I'm looking for something in the US $1000-range to use for word processing, creating PowerPoint presentations and some charts/graphs images, internet browsing, reading academic articles, and video watching. Since I'm going to be staring at it a lot, I'd like my new purchase to have a display that isn't terribly worse-looking than my current gaming notebook (specs for that are in my signature). Other requirements are capacity for 16GB of RAM (either out of the box or upgradeable to that; I tend to run many Chrome tabs and other programs at the same time) and for it to be light, preferably 14" or 15.6" and under 4 lbs. I don't need the fastest CPU nor do I need a dGPU, and I'm not picky about brand.

That's why the new Asus Vivbook 15 s532 caught my eye; it checks most of those boxes for $800, and it even has a gimmicky second screen as its touchpad. But the 57% sRGB coverage immediately made me pause. So if, as you say, the drop in display quality from my 86% sRGB notebook is going to be significantly noticeable, I'll happily look elsewhere for a new notebook! And I'm very open to suggestions.

(Disclaimer: The sRGB coverage for the Vivobook S532 hasn't been 100% confirmed yet as far as I know, and I'm not an expert on converting values between the different color spaces, but Asus advertises it as having 45% NTSC. The previous Vivobook 15 model, the s530, also had 45% NTSC--and per Notebookcheck's tests, 57% sRGB. Given that both models have the same NTSC, I assume they both have roughly the same sRGB).

 

98-100% srgb is the minimum for me, but rgbled and Oled displays have ruined most screens for me