T530 came with 4 year old display

Just last week I received my new T530 and last night I decided to run HWinfo to see which display I have. As it turns out I have a AUO B156RW01 v.1 that according to HWinfo was made the first week of 2008. So, is it normal practice to use 4 year old technology in new laptops? I would have thought Lenovo would use more up to date components. Also, how does this display compare with the other HD+ screens Lenovo uses in the T530? My only major complaint with it so far is the top down viewing angel and it seems a little grainy. I have seen worse and I am sure I will get used to it. Yes, I did consider the FHD but I couldn't justify the extra $ for how I use my laptops. Thanks for any input.

 

1st week of 2008 is just an invalid date. Either AUO does not bother updating the number, or the production date isn't stored in a way that HWINFO expects, or there are some other issues. Both AUO B156HW01 V4 (aka FHD) I have all show 1st week of 2009 in HWINFO btw.

 

All Screens used in the T530 are upper-class compared to the market standard. Yes, that means even the HD Display. The HD+ Display offers 60% Gamut, which if I am not mistaken means it shows sRGB. The FHD Display is even better than the MacBook Retina Display, having a 90% Gamut. Viewing Angles on all three Display Options are above average, but not as good as IPS. Colors are impeccable, as I just explained, and contrast is superb as well. You will hardly find a better Screen out there.

Old Displays don't necessarily mean they are bad. The R50p had an optional upgrade to QXGA. Those are 2048x1536 Pixels on a 8 Year old Laptop!

 

They do. You're not differentiating between "recently manufactured" and "up to date". There is a difference.

Also, as others have pointed out 1) that date may not be correct 2) even if it is, it's not like displays expire 3) it's one of the better panels on the market at the moment -- would you prefer a panel with a newer date but worse performance?

 

Thanks guys. You help me come to my senses. It is just, when I saw that I over reacted and didn't really think about that idea that it could be the software wasn't giving me the right date or that what ThinkRob said about being up to date. So, thanks for helping me think through it a little better. I am still curious as to how AUO compares to the LG and Samsung displays, because honestly I have never heard of AUO. Thanks again for the input.

 

Indeed.

I have one of these screens in a FrankenPad build and it's still stunningly clear and bright, while being a CCFL-lit panel.

With the newer LED-lit LCDs the age is really a non-issue IMO.

 

The brand doesn't matter nearly as much as the screen.

AU Optronics has been around for a while, and -- like Samsung, LG, Sharp, TMD, etc. -- they have produced both good and bad screens. It really depends on the model you're talking about.

IIRC the very-well-regarded FHD display on the T and W series is done by AUO... and so is the poorly-regarded display on the T420. TMD made a number of excellent SXGA+ panels for the T60... but they also made the low-contrast panel found on the X30x. BOE-Hydis did some gorgeous AFFS displays for the T4x, T6x and other models... and yet they also have churned out some relatively low-end XGA panels. Samsung made the lovely WSXGA+ panel that graced the T61 and T500... but they also made the SXGA+ panels with over-charged backlights for the T60 series.

 

The Samsung panel for the T420 is the only one without the screen door effect by the way.

 

Minor point of privilege: none of them have a "screen door" effect. The "screen door" effect is what happens when the inter-pixel spacing is so visible as to make things appear as though they're viewed through a screen door. You only really see that on very large, low-resolution displays. (If you've ever used a low-end projector on a large wall you know what I'm talking about). The "screen door" effect is regular and uniform -- the black spots are evenly-spcaed in a grid pattern (as the pixels themselves are.)

What people are referring to is the bizzare "gritty" texture and small amount of color scattering that the 14.1" 1600x900 panels -- particularly those by AUO -- exhibit. It's a lot more annoying once you know to look for it (that's what you get for reading forum reviews, eh?) but it's also quite possible to ignore it and use your laptop normally -- I've managed to for the last two years.

Color calibration helps a *lot*, particulary with the AUO screen. It won't make it beat an IPS panel or anything, but it will improve it quite a bit.

All that said, the issue is real and it does bother some people. So if you're picky about that sort of thing, you should hope that you get the Samsung panel, as 600X pointed out.

 

Rob, the world goes on as usual with you and me disagreeing, but you seem to take a dismissal stand against any hints of "griddiness" (whether or not the choice of word is optimal). You want to explain it away.

I see with my own eyes the "screen grid" or "screen door effect" on the T430/T430s "matte" HD+ screens (plenty of them in the office) as well as on the Dell XPS 15 L521X "glossy" FHD AUO screen. Emphasis: glossy.

I can relate to what some posters were talking about. They (and I) may have a lower tolerance level than you do.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with the statement about the Retina Mac unless you are talking purely about color. The display is pretty killer. I really loved 1920x1200 on that machine and may move back to one. Apple needs to improve the rendering performance. It isn't right yet. I am waiting to see and experience a 13.3" Retina Mac before I decide. That and the coming Win8 machines.

Regarding old, I have a collectors grade T60p with the 15" Flexview. I haven't actually checked to see if it's a BOE HYDIS. I bought it a few weeks ago for $225. The brightness, color, and contrast are phenomenal. No yellowing or any signs of age. I actually don't think the machine was used much.

On the subject of screen door, I thought thinkrob's description is pretty accurate. What I don't understand is why there are no standards of quality so screens are graded objectively.

The LCD and notebook makers have no incentive to create quality standards for brightness, color, contrast, blacks, pixel density, etc. That keeps everyone guessing and assessments become subjective with no empirical evidence. It's exceeding rare for ANY notebook review to measure such matters.

 

Because science is hard to understand~~?
Color:
Exp. What do 90% gamut mean?
90% NTSC does not necessary mean it can cover 100% sRGB uncalibrated (or even calibrated). Have huge gamut volume not equal to high color accuracy.
How many people will use program even wide gamut aware? How many people even know what is colorspace... It just doesn't help selling computer .

Also the problem with laptop lcd is that they do not have their own controller so their performance vary across machines. Sure if they list max nit and ppi would be great.

Look good is all that matters

 

That is a serious statement. I don't think empirical numbers will make any user feel better when looking at a screen or typing on a keyboard, or lifting a notebook lid up, for that matter. (I love lifting up my ThinkPad lid in the morning: so reassuring, not stiff, not soft, totally matter-of-fact. I wonder if there can be any objective, empirical assessment numbers for that kind of quality.)

BTW, how would you call this?

 

I'm sorry, i messed up. I meant 95% Gamut. This means it covers 95% of RGB. If a display "only" covers about 60% or 65% or whatever, it is considered sRGB.

Graphic Designers and professionals need extremely accurate Colors. Those are usually the people who would buy a 30" IPS Display.

Well then a ThinkPad is obviously not the right Notebook for you.

 

Pretty sure they are 95% NTSC.

 

Back to the original post, when did notebooks start having 16:9 displays? I thought that 4 years ago 16:10 was the norm, with 4:3 still kicking around. I'm pretty sure Lenovo didn't have any 16:9 machines back then, or is old age catching up with my memory?

 

^^^ The T410 had option for 16:10 1440x900 14.1" screen. The T500 had option for 16:10 1680x1050 15.4" screen.

The T420 went 16:9 just last year. The T510 went 16:9 two years ago.

 

So if there were no 16:9 displays 4 years ago, then power7 must be correct.

 

The HWiNFO reported date is questionable. It makes no sense to produce ten of thousands of display panels and spend money to stock them idly in warehouses, hoping that manufacturers will -- some day, maybe 4 years later -- buy some of them.

​

 

Lenovo was one of the last to switch to 16:9, so it's possible that the panels were indeed produced four years ago during an early run for the buyers that were switching "ahead of the curve".

Or HWINFO is wrong. I wouldn't bet on either explanation.

 

Well that's certianly not how I meant to come off!

I'm just trying to differentiate between two different properties, both annoying. If anything, I find the "screen door" artifacts on low-res displays to be less irritating than the AUO's "gritty" texture, as the latter is irregular (and thus more noticeable, at least for me.)

I also wouldn't count the "screen door" effect as a flaw, while I would consider the "gritty" texture and/or shimmer of the AUO panels to be a flaw.

The difference is somewhat important; displays which exhibit a "screen door" effect usually do so due to extremely low pixel density (or low-quality shadow masks in the days of CRT monitors... but I think we're past that!) There's no fix for that other than increasing the resolution -- different makes/models of panel with the same density will have the same problem. That's not the case for the gritty texture of the AUO panels -- other makes/models with the same density do not have the same appearance.

 

And life goes on regardless... HWiNFO is just software reading some random bits somewhere, nothing sacred. In any event, all my T/W510, T/W520 and T/W530 FHD AUO screens are reported the same way:

​

I suppose AUO was "prescient" enough to be years ahead of the game in its production. Still struggling as a company, though.

 

Either way, flaw or no flaw, certain users have trouble looking at such a screen, whether a scientific explanation or manufacturing justification exists for it.

Like you, I have no problem with those screens. The only difference is that I don't look at them, because I don't own the notebooks that have them.

 

What the heck IS that anyway? Seriously.

 

^^^ A Frankeinsreeendoor.

 

Now that was funny...

If I ever built a Frankie with a screen that looked like that one, I'd commit a seppuku, and I don't have a drop of Japanese blood in my veins...

 

Looks like an LCD screen as viewed by a very, very close-up macro shot, no? Or are you referring to the color shift?

Yeah, if they're *all* reading that, I'm thinking it's probably wonky data.