Is the 120hz 72% Gamut Screen worth it if you dont care about 3d?

Just curious if anyone knows if the 120hz 72% screen that you can get on the Sager NP9370 would be worth it over the standard matte 72% screen if I dont plan to use 3D at all? Thanks

 

The 120hz is definitely nice for movies and action intensive games. The frames are refreshed twice as much per second which will reduce motion blur as well as garner you that split second (miniscule) difference over somebody who is using a lesser refresh rate. We have a guy here who does BF3 and other games competitively and he refuses to use anything less than 120 hz himself.

 

Just what Derek said.

I personally think no, but then I'm not a competitive BF3 player. But then the screen itself might be of higher quality. Just call your reseller and inquire about it.

 

Thanks for the info can you tell me what brand makes both screens and if the quality is better on the 120hz Derek?

 

The 72% 60hz screen varies from a Chi Mei model and an AUO depending on stock at that time. The 3D screen will come directly from Sager though and we haven't had any into our facility to actually determine the quality in comparison or to determine manufacturer. I'll see what I can find out for you or if anybody else has the information available from their own personal machine, that'd be appreciated as well.

 

It's LG LP173WF2 (TP)(B1)

 

Thanks Prema! Saves me from waiting for a response from Sager

 

Cool, I would assume LG is better quality then the other brands since I have never heard of them would you both agree? Thanks

 

Unfortunately , brand has nothing to do with panel quality, but premium screen like 1080p or 3D tend to be better than others.

 

Not really. They all make good panels. LG isn't better than AOU or Samsung for example. LG does license from Hitachi for IPS, but Samsung and AOU have developed their own technology. Hopefully we'll start seeing AOU implementing those advnaces on laptops LCDs, currently only on their massive TV displays I think. Also AOU has the largest manufacturing of LCD panels now I believe.

Also for years now, Apple LCDs have been terrible for quality control. Lots of yellowing and other problems on even their best displays, the retina and their pro panels and their iMacs. Believe those panels are usually LG. But whatever, just more fun for me to make fun of Apple.

 

It's sad when you can get a 10" tablet that blows away every notebook in existence in terms of resolution :/

 

Its only like 30-40 dollars more going from regular 60hz 72% gamut screen to 120Hz so for the quality of both screens both being really good your really paying for a better refresh rate and the ability to use 3D if you want. To me the refresh rate seems worth it for only 30-40 more dollars would anyone agree?

 

I guess? Even on retina, actual use natively is only 1400:900, which is pathetic. If you do it at 1080p on retina, that's actually upsampling, which is insanity IMO. Well for now, I'm satisfied with 1080p for both work and gaming. It's a 15" screen. If I'm ever a graphic designer, 3D artist working on a 42" $10K LCD, then I'll wish I had a higher res and of course will have CFX FirePro, not a single wimpy 7870M.

 

I'm more talking about the M18X and the like, machines like that should be 2560x1600.....

 

Hopefully in the next generation of laptops this gets heard and implemented. For the most part people are satisfied with 1080p, those being the mass majority of the customer base instead of the enthusiasts you'll find on these boards, until there is a huge cry for laptop displays to go up in resolution it is unlikely it gets done.