Sager np8130: Stock Screen or 95% Gamut

I am not sure whether to get the stock screen or the 95% gamut matte screen for the 8130. I've read several reviews that said the stock screen was fantastic, but the 95% gamut screen has become available now for only $95. I've checked out the "Visual differences..." thread and the stock screen looks better to me there, but I've been told the 95% looks better in person.
Here's my take on the situation:

Stock Screen:
pros:
- Good contrast, black levels and viewing angles.

cons:
- Only 60% gamut.


95% Gamut Screen:
pros:
- Good contrast, black levels and viewing angles.
- 95% gamut

cons:
- Strong red tint
- Will need to calibrate (good calibrating software is expensive)
- $95 more


If I were purchasing the 8170, I would jump on a screen upgrade b/c I've read the viewing angles on the stock screen for the 8170 is pretty terrible. But the stock screen on the 8130 doesn't seem to have that problem.

Can anyone share their thoughts? If you have either screen on the 8130 (or 8150), can you comment on your experience? I wish I could go somewhere to look at these screens in person before I placed an order...

Thanks!

 

Oh, and I would be using the laptop for mostly gaming, word processing and watching movies. But a good screen is really important to me--probably the most important component of a notebook for me.

 

Either way you're going to end up with an amazing screen. I personally went with the stock screen because I don't do enough photo/video editing to warrant it. From what I've heard, it's only people that using graphics software every day that need it. That being said, if the screen is REALLY important to you and you can afford the $95, go for it.

 

I'd stick with the stock screen personally. It's fantastic.

Mr. Mysterious

 

The stock screen is nothing to sneeze at. While upgrades are available, you're not going to be unhappy with stock either. It sounds like you've already got a list that makes you want stock over 95% upgrade, so that's probably your better choice. The visual differences thread tends to be the definite yes/no for most, so if you weren't impressed, then you probably don't need it

For what it's worth, you're less likely to notice the upgrade for most day to day gaming and casual usage anyway.

 

Thanks for the replies.

For stock screen owners: Does the color saturation level bother anyone? Does anyone think there isn't enough color saturation?


For 95% gamut owners: Does the red tint bother anyone? If I do get the upgrade, I am thinking of using it as it is since a calibrator is expensive.

 

I'm typing on a Lotus P151HM1 / 8130 right now and the stock screen is very nice. As others have said, I really don't think you can go wrong either way.

 

While it's not exactly the same machine, you can read this owner's review of a system that has the same 95% gamut screen. He says:

 

One other thing since I have seen the two screens side by side the 8130 (V.1) blacks are not as close as good as the V.4. The blacks are much deeper on the v.4 and the colors "pop" and are much more vibrant.

 

Saturation can always be increased by software and GPU settings. Use the digital vibrance feature in the Nvidia control panel and the saturation can go as high as you want.

 

Not sure how much that will actually help you. If you are able to compare the 60% vs 95% gamut side by side irl, the latter will ALWAYS look better. In fact, you will perceive it as better than it truly is, simply because it is being compared to a 60% gamut screen. Conversely, you will perceive the 60% gamut as worse than it truly is for the same reason.

 

What if they didn't tell you

 

I briefly owned a laptop with a bad display and turned up the vibrance, but then the colors became very inaccurate.

 

I doubt that I would perceive the 95% to be better simply because I know in advance that it has a higher gamut. One reason is b/c I've seen the pictures on the "Visual Differences..." thread and I wasn't very impressed with the 95%, especially with the strong red tint to the display. But others are saying the 95% looks better in person, which I haven't had a chance to do--so that leaves me undecided.

Thus, I think being able to see the displays prior to buying will help a great deal. I would rather avoid having to deal with the issue of wondering if I bought the better screen or deal with the hassle of returns and add'l shipping fees.

Thanks everyone for your input so far. Can anyone recommend a good calibrator or, better yet, provide a good profile for the 95%?

 

^I second that. I don't know how to calibrate a screen and I ordered the 95%. Any suggestions are welcomed.

 

Digital Vibrance is not for accurate colors but boosting the vibrance and
"prettiness" of what's on screen whether it's your desktop, games, or movies, etc. and I think it looks great.

If you need perfect color accuracy and accurate gamut for image editing, production, design, work, etc. then of course go for a 95% gamut screen.

I absolutely don't need that however and the stock screen is already one of the best notebook screens you can actually buy (as per Anandtech).

 

The 95% will always look better than the 60% simply because it is a better screen due to the higher gamut, not because you know that it has a higher gamut. That being said, what you will perceive, if the 95% is put next to the 60% irl, is the former appearing better than it truly is, while the latter appears worse than it truly is. It is perceptual contrast, is difficult to avoid, and will inevitably skew your decision making. That is why 95% vs 60% cannot be a fair comparison. It is the same as comparing a Fuji apple to a Granny Smith in terms of sweetness.

 

A higher gamut is but one factor in considering whether a screen better than another. For example, one would also consider horizontal and vertical viewing angles, black levels, contrast ratio, brightness, brightness distribution, how cold or warm the display appears, prevalence of a specific color, refresh rate, the need for calibration, etc. A higher gamut alone does not make it a better screen. That is why I would like to observe the screens side by side irl to make my own determination. But unfortunately I cannot, so I have requested input from others, particularly those who have seen the screens side by side irl.

However, your opinion has been noted and I thank you for responding to this thread.

 

double post

 

A user who has the 95% gamut screen has posted some pictures and links to videos of it next to a Dell IPS display. Link

He notes:

Be sure to take heed of his note about how the pictures and video were taken as it relates to notebook display.

 

I just had the opportunity to see 2 8130's side by side. One with the stock screen and one with the 95% gamut glossy screen. Right off the bat I noticed how much more vibrant the colors on the 95% looked. To get anywhere close to that with the stock screen, you have to turn up the nVidia digital vibrance to 70%. Another thing I noticed is how blue the stock screen is to the 95% screen. On the other hand, the 95% screen is noticeably redder. The blue or red could be easily adjusted via calibration, but the problem is Windows 7 won't hold the calibration when playing Directx games.

 

Thanks, that is helpful. I've been leaning toward the 95%--I just hope they will still be in stock once I am ready to order in a month or two.

Did you think the viewing angles were better on the 95% or on the stock?

 

The viewing angles are about the same. Both do good from the sides but not so good top and bottom. This isn't a problem unless you plan on using the laptop while standing in front of your desk.

 

The 95% gamut screens are standard now for the S1 models. Jealous! Lucky people who are ordering in June instead of April You get the 95% gamut screens, 1600Mhz ram, and 560Ms. I just have to bump up digital vibrancy.

What I would be interested to know is if the 95% screen is brighter? In some offices with really bright lights, my screen is a bit dim.

 

I noticed the stock matte screen on the 8130 is just a hair brighter compared to the 95% glossy when I viewed them side by side.

 

Yeah, the red on the google chrome icon definitely pops out compared to the yellow and green, on the 95% gamut screen.

 

Would you people say it is worth $150 to upgrade the screen from stock matte to 90% Gamut glossy on a 17 inch? Is there a big difference? I want the matte because it is without reflections, but at the same time I want a clear screen with good colours. Do you need a calibration program to make the screen work or does Windows and GPU utility everything automaticly?

 

I would personally try to play around with the calibration profile before you think about dropping $150 for a screen upgrade.

Mr. Mysterious

 

I don't think there is a stock matte option for the 17 inch Sager notebooks (8170)--a matte screen would be an upgrade itself.

If you're asking whether to upgrade from the stock glossy screen, I would highly recommend it--many have complained the stock glossy has really bad vertical viewing angles.

 

It is not Sager but a MSI laptop
MSI GT 780R:
Stock screen: 1920x1080 FDH (Matte-type) Anti-Glare
Upgrade: 1920X1080 Full HD LED backlight Ultra Bright, 90% NTSC Color Gamut, Glossy. Costs $185.

I know I am in the wrong forum, but it seems like many of you have upgraded your displays and have some experience with it so I thought that someone of you could give me some advice

 

I would never call a move from a matte screen to a glossy screen an upgrade for a laptop. I love glossy screens for desktops. I would never touch one again on a laptop. For a desktop or TV, glossy is great since it stays in one location where you can control the lighting and it's great. For a laptop that has to move around and be in many different lighting conditions and environments, a matte screen is a must. A glossy screen in office lighting, by a window, ourdoors, etc. will be nearly impossible to see. Even if you are inside, a glossy laptop can potentially have a lot of annoying reflections on it and this causes some people headache and eyestrain because you have to strain to see behind the reflections and your brain has to filter them out.

 

Yeah I know. I would love to have a matte screen. But it`s been like 10 years or so since the last time I used a matte since they are extremely hard to get hands on. The thing is that the glossy screen offer 90% gamut which should give better colours etc right? I don`t know the exact gamut percentage of the stock screen but I`m guessing 60ish. So it is either a glossy screen with excellent colours and reflections, or a matte screen with worse gamut without reflections but with the greyish haze some people are complaining about. It is a 17 inch and I will be mostly using it on my desk by the window, and true, there is some reflections here that I somehow got used too with my glossy screen. So I don`t really know what to do.

 

Without a doubt, 100% of the time, every time, I'd choose the 95% gamut screen.

It's so rare to have on a non workstation notebook. I'd NEVER pass up that kind of option.

The screen will be better in EVERY way with 95% gamut coverage. I mean, that is RARE.

 

I recently had to move my computer from my spare bedroom where I kept it pretty dark into the living room near a window. We usually keep the blinds for that window closed, but because it's an eastern exposure, quite a lot of light still gets through. Using my wife's laptop with a glossy screen there was awful. The glare and reflection was almost too much to bear. Not so with the matte screen. It's an absolute joy to work on.

 

Which has a better quality display, the 95% gamut offered by resellers or the IPS Display from X220?

 

Anyone with the matte screen had it outside? Hows it fair in direct sunlight? TIA.

 

I don't have an 8130, but i have the 8150 with the 95% matte screen. I just tested my screen out in direct and indirect sunlight.

In indirect sunlight, there is no glare, good brightness. It looks almost the same when I have my laptop inside.

In direct sunlight, the screen has no glare at all! I can see every part of the screen, with no problems. It is dim, but not bad. If you lower the brightness to the lowest setting on your 8130/8150, that is what it looks like to me in direct sunlight.

Hope that gives you an idea. I am totally sold on matte screens!

 

I have both. 95% blows alway the x220 ips screen when it comes to color. But the IPS screen blows away the 95% TN based screen when viewing angle is not straight on. Both are awesome screens. Precieved viewing angle is further reduced when the TN screen is color calibrated. No such issue with the IPS screen.

Either way both screens are night and day better than Best Buy trash. And compared to the 72% color gamut version, the 95% is much better, huge difference u will instantly notice. All 3 screens mentioned is matte.

 

That's great. It's one backlit keyboard away from the perfect machine.

 

and switchable graphics.

 

This is both a Sager-relevant and X-220-relevant post. i know the latter doesn't belong here, but it came up in conjunction with the question about the upgraded 95% gamut Sager, and I happen to be looking to purchase both an 8130 and an X-220.

I find that most high quality TN screens today have excellent horizontal viewing angles (like, 45% to near 90%) and I've never found a need for more than 15% or so (except for a tablet PC, which needs an IPS, AFFS+ or equivalent), which again most good quality TN's have today. Does anyone have a contrary point of view on this?

Also, I have read so many descriptions of the X-220 screen that read like yours (paraphrasing/generalizing): "awesome, IPS is great for viewing angles, better by far than standard retail 'trash', etc" Regardless, what I still have not read anywhere, and it's driving me a bit nuts, is: how is the colorspace of the X220 IPS panel? Gamut? Accuracy? Has anyone actually run measurements ("professional reviewer" or amateur) Also, haven't read definitive brightness or contrast numbers, though those are easier to eyeball and most are reporting them to be in the good-to-excellent range. Opinions and links most appreciated.

 

The problem that I have with screens is that it's all subjective values. I have yet to find an objective (software, method, whatever) way of correctly assessing "screen quality".

What may be amazing to one person may just be adequate to another.

Mr. Mysterious

 

There are some measurable objective values--such as the black levels, brightness levels, contrast, screen resolution, and color gamut.

But I agree that it is a predominantly subjective determination. That is why I think it is best to see the actual screens and compare them side by side before purchasing, if at all possible.

I am also factoring in popular opinion here since I can't see the screens myself and a majority of the folks here recommend the 95%, so I am leaning toward that one. Matte of course

Here is a good resource on both objective and subjective values for the stock matte screen (AUO11ED), 95% matte screen (AUO14ED) and the 95% glossy screen (AUO17ED):

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...550475-15-6-fhd-1920x1080-panels-reviews.html

 

I find my stock default matte screen (not 95% gamut) a little dark, both inside with bright office lighting and outside in indirect sunlight (in the car, coffee shop, etc.) even at max brightness.

Can anything be done? My old Acer had a user written application to crank up the brightness even higher.

 

This is subjective. To me visually the x220 color gamut is a tad below the 72% color gamut TN screen that I have. I would rate it around 60%. Notebookcheck.net actually has a review on the x220 in Dutch I believe. Its contrast ratio is extremely high at 800+. Color gamut looks like its in the 60 to 72 range (I don't read dutch, but judged by the colorspace picture it shown compared to rgb colorspace.)

 

I am about to pull the trigger on an np8130 and am really torn on the screen regarding glossy vs matte. I have seen an XPS 15 RGB screen in glossy that was simply awesome compared to a MacBook Pro 15 inch glossy or m17x R3 glossy.

I am pretty sold on the 95% at this point - but not so much on the glossy vs matte. Coming from the glass on a MacBook Pro it sounds great, but is it worth 100 bucks extra? I saw some comparisons with deeper blacks on the glossy too - I use the computer mostly indoors but during the day the matte sounds like a good option but I would hate to lose much on the glossy at night.

 

It is totally worth it for the $100. The matte screen is very bright and vibrant. It's so bright that I have mine set at 50-60% brightness indoors. I really like how there is 0 glare, but for someone who uses indoor most of the time, it might not matter. I bring my laptop around as I travel a lot and it's nice to be able to use it in the car and etc. If you don't think you'd use the laptop a lot in an environment that would cause glare, then glossy would be good for you.

You should go to a local store and check out the matte/glossy screens and see if you can get a comparison. That's what I did and was sold on the matte.