Is the 90% gamut screen worth it?

Is the 90% gamut screen worth it?

... For games?
... For web surfing and general use?
... For photo editing?
... For movie watching?

My reasoning here is that I would like to know for what purpose the 90% gamut screen would be the biggest impact. I'm assuming that photo editing would be beneficial since it would reproduce colors better, but how about the rest?

 

It will help with all of those but not so much for gaming as games dont have all the different colors in them that the screen can produce. If you're doing a lot of photo editing I do like the matte screens better, the 72% will still get you some nice colors as well. Glossy screens are a little more vibrant which does look better for games but not as color accurate compared to matte.

 

Exactly what hatsudy mentioned. Matte for anything creative design imo. Glossy takes away from the true colors that are being represented with vibrant colors. For games? Nope. The only thing that truthfully really helps games are refresh rates. Screen whether it is in glossy or mate will not really matter. Laptops are standard 60hz screens generally speaking. So for gaming only purposes any screen would be sufficient but for creative design kind of work such as photoshop, illustrator etc and general web surfing a screen like that would be perfect. Of course preference is totally up to you and how much your budget comes to. If you have any questions message me.

 

I really cant say how the normal screen looks, i got a Lotus PM150 with 95% glossy screen and just blows me away, its a great screen, i even ca use very small fonts and read everything.
then again i had never used a full HD screen in a laptop-.--- so prob i am biased, but still-.

cheers

Voz

 

It is for gamer only. Other programs you will not see the difference. At least, I won't tell the difference.

 

I wouldn't have expect that as Games generally don't display as much variety in color as for instance a photo of flowers.

I'm guessing the standard 70% screens would be enough for me, thanks.

 

Completely disagree. If you go on any gaming forum, people who have good gaming rigs have very nice IPS displays that are better than anything that is available for an MSI, Clevo, Alienware, or Asus notebook.

And guaranteed the games were developed on machines with properly calibrated displays.

 

As far as I know, game usually are done in sRGB gamut which is typically around the 72%NTSC . The "gaming forum people" get IPS display because they usually cover srgb and have full range viewing angles. There are also people who dedicated to 120Hz TN panels for low input lag and higher possible refresh rate.
In contrast, DSLR can generate 10,12 and some do 14bit in aRGB(or some higher gamut only photographer cares) , which is far more than the usual game.
Are game done in calibrated display? maybe, maybe not.

 

Are the Sager 90% gamut screens IPS? If so that would actually be a reason to buy it, but I've never seen it mentioned one way or the other.

As far as color calibrated screens on game devs, I'll say not necessarily. I'd expect that they would be making it look good on average as well as extreme end systems. 99% of people don't have color calibrated screens so why focus your effort there. Yes, make it accurate, but fps, playablity, and stability far outweigh 100% accurate colors. On the other hand the upgrade isn't too high of a price, but it's noticeable and shaving off a few bits here and there makes up for the friggin expensive 680M. Damn AMD/ATI and the great hardware they often screw up with poor drivers.

 

The 90% is not IPS.

 

everything looks better on a high gamut screen, even stuff programmed for lower gamut looks far more vivid. The quality of the screen is always the first thing that other people notice first when they use my laptop. Keep in mind some of the older game engines tend to reset calibration upon entering full screen mode, but so far I would say that I found almost all recent games to work well with calibrations.

Also worth noting is that there is also a matte version of B173HW01 V4 (90%) screen, which although officially only has 72% gamut its actually much higher than that. I have tested that screen (B173HW01 V5) and its the same panel as the 90% one (same calibration profile), save for matte coating which reduces gamut a little. Anandtech tested the gamut on B173HW01 V5 and found it to be 85%, rather than 72% ( AnandTech - The Razer Blade Review), so you should probably consider it as well.

 

I think everything looks much better. I chose the 90% glossy screen for not only my enjoyment in gaming, but also to help out with my fiance's photo work. I'm not sure if the matte screen would have been better for her, but the screen is sufficient for her and she does good work with it.

 

Out of all the screens I've compared mine to, the only one that looks better than my 90% is my friend's mac cinema display, which is a damn good screen. I'm very happy with it.