need help choosing the screen on my np9150.(95% gamut or stock glossy).

hey guys
I'm ordering a np9150 with a 7970m. I am now deciding whether I should get the 95% gamut screen or stick with the stock glossy version.

I have read the thread which claims the gamut screen isn't good for gamers. while it has given me a little perspective on the matter, I am still as confused as ever.

I am fairly certain the screen does offer a little improvement over the stock screen. Only problem is how much and whether its worth it or not. it is hard to gauge how good a screen looks as it is a subjective matter and no statistics or numbers can win an argument. even looking at screenshots online is pointless since I'm watching them on another screen.

I'll list here a few displays of which I have very good experience with. hopefully someone can use these to help me understand what the 95% gamut will look like:

1) old CRT monitors with 32bit true color mode
2) regular LCD glossy and matte
3) 3d plasma TV
4) Super Amoled displays with 138% gamut(these are on my cell phones).

personally, anything other than the regular LCD panels look good to me. I'm assuming the regular display on the np9150 is an led so better than a non backlit LCD. other than that, if anyone can tell me how close the 95% gamut looks relative to the displays I've mentioned above, I would be grateful.

 

The 95% screen is vibrant and bright, though the stock panel is not bad either. I would make sure you have everything else set right in the system and if you still have money left over go for the screen upgrade.

 

thanks for the reply.

'everything else' is a tricky concept =).
I started out with a $1000 budget in mind. now I'm at around $1360 with a 7970m. naturally I could toss in a slew of stuff in there easily and that price would keep climbing.

what else do you think should I be looking at?

 

Very few people need or can fully utilize a 95% gamut screen, so unless accurate RGB color reproduction is important to you (offset printing, professional for-print photography..etc) then you won't notice a difference. Some have even argued colors get worse in games because they're programmed with a more limited color spectrum yada yada. The stock display on NP9170/9150 has received rave reviews. Save your money and get a larger SSD or a second one to stripe.

 

Make sure you have enough storage space and it's fast enough and you will be fine, like NeoCzar said it's not neccessary, I don't treat it as pointless but I rank it a lot lower than getting a good SSD.

 

Ya, the stock screen on the 150 is gorgeous as far as laptop screens.........if only they offered an IPS version

Just to mirror what has already been said, I'd upgrade everything else first though since the screen is already top-notch.

 

If you haven't selected an SSD yet, you shouldn't be spending $95 on the screen.

 

unless you are doing some really heavy photo editing you dont really need the 95% screen.

ive always had glossy and this time i went for the standard matte screen and its ruddy brilliant. very bright vibrant colours. comparing it to my previous glossy m860tu clevo it knocks the stuffing out of it and i will never buy another glossy screen again.

 

I'd rank importance as GPU > SSD > Screen. You can even put the Screen in front of the SSD depending on your budget since you can always add a SSD easily later.

 

The screen upgrade looks beautiful, but you really won't appreciate it in full unless you rely on it - for, say professional photo editing. If you don't have a particular hobby or trade that demands it, then invest elsewhere for performance gains, as the stock screen - as Meaker pointed out - is pretty good. I think you'll appreciate being potentially able to boot your system in under 10 seconds over greater color saturation.

 

You don't need or fully utilize a 95% gamut screen to fully appreciate it. I wholly recommend it if that is what you desire. I'd personally ignore all the comments about needing or fully utilizing it, as I believe 95% gamut or better IPS with HD+ resolutions should be standard on ALL high performance laptops today. Regardless if your a photography, or graphics professional, matters none to me. None of the big 3 for performance machines from Alienware, Clevo or MSI have the display options that I think should be STANDARD at no extra cost. And while at it, bring back 16:10. My laptop wasn't built just to view crappy hollywood videos.

Personally I'd take the 95% screen over SSD any day, anytime. SSD doesn't make me appreciate what I see at all in the least bit. All it does is speed up my load times, has zero impact on performance far as I'm concerned.

 

IPS displays do have higher input lag and higher power consumption so having them standard on gaming machines would not make sense.

 

Hey guys
Thanks for all the input. I ended up upgrading to the np9170. This gave me an extra inch of working space and a matte display. Cost me $50. Considering that the matte display on the np9150 was $30, this deal looks all the better. I couldn't justify the extra $100 for a screen who's usefulness was pretty much open to debate. the 95% screen is probably fantastic, but I got the impression that the regular screen was good enough. Thanks for the help =)

 

Well it's not more workspace as such since they are the same resolution, it will just be a little easier to see.

 

I had the same debacle when first purchasing my p150em, there's an interesting topic about it here

 

Yea, I probably read all of that xD. Its partly this thread which lead me to put off my plans for that screen. I checked out the screenshots on my 138% gamut phone screen, didn't seem like too much difference. I mean yes there was a difference...but I think I'd rather have a slightly larger screen than slightly more saturated colors.

 

well I have a 52" plasma that has only 720p. Big is Big xD

 

Yes, it's big but I an fit more information on my 15.6" 1080p display.

 

If I were a robot to make this decision I'd agree with you. pixels are equal on both screens...case closed.

However, human eyes arent satisfied with pixel count alone. As long as you cannot see the pixelation, size incease does make it look like extra room to watch and work on. I bet if you go ingame with full AA and a notch down in resolution, you still won't notice the difference.

You are entitled to your opinion however and thats ok too xD

 

Except with a notebook you sit closer to it Without knowing about my setup you can't judge that. The distances I am from my monitor I am not quite a "retina" levels.

Also 720P is a huge step down especially on 52".

 

Haha. Man, maybe your eyes are just better than mine but when I bought my plasma I was side comparing it with a similar sized LED that was 1080p. It was hard to notice any difference from 10 feet away watching the same video which was in sync on both.(I went for the plasma because it had 3D).

However, I will concede that the difference can be felt with much more effect when running games.

back to the 17" display. My main point is that the extra one inch would not make things any more pixelated to me than a 15" display especially when AA is on.

 

Enjoy your extra inch

 

lol, I foresaw this coming a mile away xD

 

True, a 1080p 17" notebook display will not look pixelated. A 720p one would though I remember taking my old acer 7738G from 1600x900 to 1080p and the difference for me was huge.

 

I agree, 720p is low and looks pixelated up close. However, the only reason the 52" pulls it off is due to the viewing distance which is usually far enough to not spot any.

 

Which is also why consoles get away with a lot more too ^-^.

 

true. but I'm somewhat glad consoles limit the graphics in games. It helps our hardware last longer xD

 

Toshiba's Kirabook rocks a 2560 x 1440 display, arrives May 12th starting at $1,600 - so it begins...

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

Not really since they just don't bother with the port, it just means everything looks ugly.

 

haha man that's just pessimism =p. you should look at the alternate universe where consoles are actually as strong as the PC and games still come out unoptimized. scary!
apart from some glaring exceptions *cough* gta4 *cough* I think most games run at fairly respectable rates.

also, lack of optimization means we get better hardware at a lower price because card makers will price their product based on the results.

as an example, look at the 7970m. right now it sells for around $200 lower than the 680m. if it had no optimization issues, don't you think ATI would have priced that just a tad higher?

 

If consoles were as powerful as PCs they would have the same architecture and you would not need to port them.

 

Consoles may not be as powerful as the top of the line PC right now. However, a PC with similar power to consoles can be built even now. However, you and I both know that the architecture will not be the same even though they are similar in strength. Heck, it's hard enough to find 2 Pc's that share their architecture 100% with each other.

As a result, I think it is grossly naive to assume that consoles will ever share a PC's architecture, even with similar strength.

 

I think you are mistaking the term "architecture". Think "x86". Quite contrary to what you stated, pretty much the majority of all PCs for about 20 years have shared the same architecture, namely IA-32 specifications.

Even the x86_64 processors have mostly full binary compatibility with the 8086, the original "x86". Pretty amazing feat however it leads to some wildly complicated instruction sets.

I agree though for the casual gamer consoles are more than fine. However, once you experience full blown 1080p+ anything its tough to compare. My 95% gamut v7 had a red tint to it. Be sure to get it calibrated.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

You say that but I can pretty much take any graphics card/memory/HDD and use it freely between CPU/motherboard combinations while at the same time I can run the same software on both....

Yes some of the internals are done differently but this is completely hidden to the user and often even the software while giving the same compatibility.

 

OK I maybe using the wrong term here. However, I still stand by my point. They may all 'share' the architecture, but there is still a lot of hardware changes from the components of one machine to the next. If it were as simple as just making a game work on 1 sort of machine as the ps3 or 360, I bet lack of optimization on the PC would be a non issue. However, even with the similar architecture, game developers still have to work harder to get things right on the PC vs the consoles. As such, all I was pointing out is that optimization on the PC is always going to be tougher compared to consoles.

 

You can run the same software on both because some programmer out there worked his socks off so you can xD. Just because its hidden doesn't mean its not there.