How do Sager screens compare to Sony Vaio?

I know the topic on matte vs. glossy on here has been beaten to death but I was wondering if anyone could provide me with some insight into how the screens compare to Sony. I'm currently looking at the NP9170 and am trying to debate if I want to go with the 90% NTSC color gamut screen or just stick to the stock panel that comes with the system.

I don't do TOO much gaming and am basically buying the system as a desktop replacement that's somewhat portable but I will likely be watching and/or editing HD video casually on occasion.

Cheers!

 

im on my second clevo now and previously had glossy.
ive got the 15" of your version with the standard matte screen and its ruddy lovely. very bright vibrant colours and great for gaming. tbh i cant see how the 72%/95% gammut screens can get much better but i guess they can.

 

would be nice if someone posted screen shots of the difference

 

Screenshots or pictures actually don't do much good due to needing to rely on the monitor being used to view those pictures. For screenshots, they don't do any good since they aren't taking a screenshot of what the monitor is displaying but rather what they should be displaying. The only real way to see the difference is going to be to see them in person. Many users have commented, like Mr DJ, that default matte screen is awesome. It's likely to be all you need for just about anything outside of professional photography use in which case I'd make the plunge and opt for the 95% screen.

 

Awesome, thanks guys. I appreciate the feedback.

 

as Derek said a picture of a screen just doesnt do it justice but this is the difference between my old clevo glossy and new clevo standard matte.



very bright sunlight on a lovely summers day (we dont get many of them), -4c at the moment.

 

OP - are you looking at factors to compare/contrast in relation to image quality between the two manufacturers? Or are you looking for a Sony matte (or glossy) v.s. Sager matte (or glossy) quality sort of comparison?

 

Agreed. Question is too generic to be answered.

Anyway, I think Sager's screen manufacturer is Chimei.

 

I've a question.
Im under the impression the glossy screens are easier to clean, whereas matte tends to clog a little with tiny particles, making it harder to clean and taking longer to wipe out.
Is there some truth in that or am I just imagining things (again)?

 

As I remember Sony has got 100% NTSC on some models

 

Before I bought my NP6350 (W350ETQ) I owned a Sony FW290, which had a full HD 1920X1080 glossy screen and Blu Ray player. The picture looked great to me until I bought my new laptop and had both setup right next to one another on my table with the same desktop background. To test the displays further I loaded the same high def image on each to compare image quality and color.Truthfully I thought the Sony had a great display, but once I saw the difference it was very apparent. The Sager display is also glossy and both have a bit of glare in high light environments, but IMO matte looks washed out and dull. The Sager's display has much deeper colors and contrast (difference between the highs and lows) and it hadn't even been calibrated. Also I noticed that the Sony display relies on higher backlight settings (or brightness) to achieve higher image quality whereas the Sager display maintains it's color and image quality at lower brightness settings. I ran the Sony at full brightness as much as I could, and I run the Sager display at 85% brightness plugged in and around 50% on battery. The Sager display also has better picture quality than my external high def HP monitor I hook it up to.

One thing to take into account is that the Sony display I was comparing is from an older laptop, but it is still considered high definition. Also my Sager display is the glossy full HD 1920X1080 display and isn't the 95% NTSC Gamut upgrade. You certainly won't be disappointed with any of the Sager display options. I know you didn't mention it, but keep in mind that IPS displays may reproduce colors accurately and give a nice image but they also have slower response times then the non IPS (or TN display). TN types typically run cooler, faster, and can be more energy efficient than IPS displays.

 

No such screens exist.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. I'm wrong a lot these days.

 

well you can look at the dream color 2 displays, they do 150% aRGB, you can calculate how that fares on ntsc, and the vaio Z screen should be around that, the F series is also very known for their screen quality, but all sony models that had decent screens have been discontinued, though I dont know how the the 11'' one fares

but yes the sager/clevo uses some very quality screens on the 15 and 17 range

 

Well, I have a Vaio F12 with a glossy screen, it looks good, and I'm curious how the regular matte screen on the NP9170 would compare (outside of the obvious differences between matte and glossy screens in general).

If I'm watching a blu-ray on a stock screen, will it look decent? I'm not really sure how much more specific I can get.

 

Gonna be tough to compare them unless you can get someone who has both to compare them side by side.

You can get HWInfo to pull the model number of the LCD screen installed and look up the specs on it.

 

I am pleased to prove you are wrong again.

 

Interesting.

I might consider myself squeezing by on a technicality, because laptops with those screens can no longer be purchased.

 

I am pleased to tell you are wrong again. At least s series with 100% NTSC is selling in Japan and hong kong

 

Thanks, can't wait to get my new 9170!

 

one thing that I noticed is that when I wrote about the sony screens, it appeared that I was saying it got 150% aRGB, that is not true, they are close in quality to what clevo offers in their 15'' range, albeit the sony ones are actually better depending on the model that you have, if my my memory is not playing tricks

 

Sony on select models will have better, IPS etc. But their lack of hardware and price make them meh options. That and they are not know for reliability or service. And they keep a strangle hold on their drives, sometimes having to mod them to install.
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

 

I can attest to the matte screens being harder to clean. They just don't wipe off like the glossy screens do. As far as the standard matte screen offered by Sager, goes. It is beautiful, and can be calibrated. Like [email protected] said if you aren't a professional photographer you aren't going to need it or even notice it.

 

This is an interesting article about the different displays available with the NP9170, and how they rank vs other gaming/high end laptops. They compare both the glossy and matte offerings in several different categories such as contrast ratio, white levels, black levels, color accuracy, and percent of RGB

Check out HTWingNut's Sager NP9150 Review if you need more input, or can't decide between glossy/matte or 72% gamut vs 90% gamut. I didn't see the need to upgrade to matte cost wise or preference wise. I was working with a budget when I purchased mine and I felt the money was better spent on a SSD for my primary OS drive. I believe the NP9170 comes standard with matte and glossy is an upgrade, so I'd take the standard matte unless you absolutely hate it or have to have glossy. Also it is worth adding that you have plenty of flexibility for hooking up an external monitor via hdmi, dvi, or display port and it should be capable of pushing ultra high resolutions. I am actually looking at a new BenQ monitor to replace my aging 22" HP external monitor.