Sony Vaio S 13 Premium (S13A) Screen

TL;DR - Is the screen really weak, enough for me to go with the Dell XPS14 instead? Or should I plop $2k down on the Sony?

So as far as I can tell, the display is the weak spot of this laptop. Everything else seems to be exactly what I want, albeit at a premium price.

So for those that own this laptop, is it worth it? I do graphic design, photo editing, gaming and general web surfing. The vast majority of use of this machine will be web browsing and gaming. I will edit photos on it (LR) on occasion. Color accuracy isn't going to make/break it for me, but really bad viewing angles, low contrast, generally dim brightness might. I've read pretty much all the reviews I can.

I'm comparing this laptop to the Dell XPS 14, the Asus Zenbook UX31A, the Samsung Series 9 13" i7, and the Lenovo Carbon X1. The only one that's really close, spec-wise (discrete GPU, screen res, CPU speed, etc) is the Dell - the others are ultrabooks, and the Dell doesn't offer a sheet battery for extra longevity. So I'm leaning towards the Sony, though that being said, I'm typing this on a 12" Dell Vostro that's been a workhorse for the last 3.5 years with no issues whatsoever. So there's that.

I kind of want it all - discrete GPU for gaming, high res screen for photo editing, long battery life for travel - this is the only laptop I can think of that comes close to checking all these boxes. I'm going to get the S13P model with stock ram/hdd and add an extra 4GB and a 480GB SSD afterwards. I'm comparing it to the top-end XPS14 with a 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM, and i7 3517U.

Thoughts?

 

I have a S13A and the display is the worst display I have ever seen on a laptop. It is literally a piece of garbage. In my opinion those $300 brand new notebooks with AMD APU's and 1366x768 15" displays absolutely destroy the S13A's display in terms of clarity and contrast ratio. Oh, and the viewing angles on this laptop are beyond horrible, especially the horizontal viewing angles.

Still, I love this laptop and would highly recommend it.

 

Had exactly the same specification request. LR, gaming and websurfing in the most lighter an thinner way possible. I've been looking the perfect laptop for this usage for almost 3 months. And the only option came out was the Vaio Z and S13P. The Vaio Z would have been simply perfect if this god damn PMD had a nice GPU instead of this crap low end AMD thing...
Then I realised, that afterall, 13" is a pain to do some proper photo editing work... So I've choosed the solution of the Vaio S with an external display. I still can do some basic photo work on it while i'm on the go... but you'll definitely need a bigger screen when you're at home.

If Photo editing come on the 2nd plan for you and if you'll do more gaming than LR, get the vaio S. The Oc ability is just amazing. And the color are not that bad. The screen is just not something you would expect on a "Premium" machine... It's not the best screen out there, but it's definitely something good compare to what you can get on the 13" market. I'm sure you have read Lisa's review on Mobiletech...

If Photo editing is your primary criterion, then a 13" screen is not the solution anyway. Even if you had a 96% aRGB coverage (like the Vaio Z :'( ), you would have to plug into an proper external screen to do some serious photo editing...

Plus, no need to mention that the Sony come with 2 SSD in Raid0 (From notebookcheck.com, it's simply a new record in term of speed. The sony is actually the fastest laptop on the market.). And the OC ability of GPU... Seriously.
A GT 650M level in a 13" laptop. Enought said I think!

 

I'm not sure how you're configuring it to $2k - if it's with RAM and SSD I very strongly recommend doing that yourself, unless you have money to burn. It's quite easy to do.

As for the screen I think it's best described as very average quality with above-average pixel density. The contrast is mediocre and whites are a bit fuzzy because of the anti-glare coating. Color gamut is actually not bad, 80-85% of sRGB, which is better than average. Horizontal viewing angles are average but vertical angles are quite narrow - I often find myself adjusting the display up or down.

It isn't absolutely horrible like many on this forum say, but at this price point the S13P really should have something better. I still love the laptop though, the screen isn't bad enough that it makes this laptop any less impressive.

The S13P pretty much in a class of its own, with the only thing coming close being the Asus UX32VD - and that isn't all that similar.

 

Thanks all for the feedback. I decided to go with the Sony Vaio S, as described. The $2k part is the laptop (in Canada) coming to $1480 after tax including the i7, 2gb GPU, sheet battery. Then I bought a 480GB SSD and an extra 4GB RAM from Newegg for $400. So it's closer to $1900.

My Dell's existing screen (12" non-LED) is completely awful. Narrowest vertical viewing angles I've ever seen - even from the top to the bottom looking straight-on, you get different colors at the top and the bottom. But I've gotten used to it and it doesn't bug me much anymore. But then, I also only paid $750 for this.

I'm glad that the screen is 'above average' by most counts, though I realize it is not premium. I think I'll be decently happy with the laptop as a whole, especially since I know the screen is going to be the weak spot going in. I appreciate all of your time.

 

We are all in the same boat. But I recommend you to go in a Sony Store or whatever to at least give a look to the model before buying it. Even if I knew the screen will be not as "good" as the Z, I was still suprised by the grained aspect of the screen when I got it.... It took me about a week to get use to it. Some ppl do, some doesn't.
And I don't know how it work in Canada, but in France, with do can return the laptop within 30 days if we're not happy with that. No question asked....

PS: you can saved money on the GPU, 2GB Vram is more than useless...

 

Thanks, Digitalhiro.

I already bought it online. I live in a smallish city (85k people) and there's no Sony store nearby. So I had to buy it sight unseen, though I've seen them in store in the past and the screen didn't jump out at me as being particularly bad.

As for the GPU, you're probably right, but the $50 wasn't going to break me and since I can't upgrade it later, I added it.

The more I thought about the Z, the less I want it, in spite of the better screen. With the S, at least I can throw in more ram (8gb stick) later if I want/need or pop in a bigger ssd. I might never do it, but I like the option. To buy the Z with a similar size SSD (512) and the same RAM was going to make the price around $2800 and I just can't afford that - and that's without the GPU dock.

 

sorry, duplicate post

 

And the best for the end...

 

Vaio S13A has 80-85% SRGB?????????? Is this true?

 

Worst. Screen. Ever.

That said, 99% of the time I use it with a calibrated Dell U2412, so it's less of a problem. Whenever I go travelling I wish I would have gone for something else. Eyeing up the Duo 11 right now, it's got a fairly bad color space, but contrast & viewing angles of its IPS screen may make up for that when on the go (diagrams available in the Owner's Lounge). The Z is definitely worth it if you need color accuracy, but the viewing angles of a TN screen are never ideal for working with photos.

Do you require something better than a HD 4000? If not, I'd recommend a mid-range ultrabook + a good IPS screen instead of an expensive laptop.

Kanuk, I'd really like to see the source for that sRGB number. I'd very much doubt it, unless the source is credible. I can't test it myself. I work in the sRGB space all day long, and I would never trust the SA screen.

 

The screen made me switch from the S13 to now only considering the S15. At first I thought I could only handle 13" for portability, I was deciding between the S13A and the UX32VD, and the mediocre battery with no sheet option of the Asus kind of finalized my decision. But I looked at the screen in the store, a few times, and right next to it the S15... then, I would lift both up and the difference is really small. Both 1.7 and 2kg are not light, but also not heavy. In the end it's way more than a decent Ultrabook or Tablet, which you would 'just' carry around, but if you need to, it doesn't matter much weight-wise. Only the X-Y dimensions, yes. But at least I get a much, much better screen (and quad-core CPU) for that.

I really suggest to try the S15 and S13 side-by-side in a store, lift them up, look at the size, and the screen.

 

@nons_

They almost never have the batteries attached to the laptops in the Sony stores, and they usually make up over half the weight of the unit. You may well have been lifting only 1kg or less when testing them. Did you double check that the batteries were attached? I find the S13A annoying to carry around, but then, I don't like carrying anything in my hands when walking.

 

yes, I compared with batteries of course

that's also my point - neither the S13 nor the S15 are particularly 'ultra-light' or whatever one wants to call it. the weight is significantly above the comfort zone where I don't mind slipping the thing just in my bag (that's me at least), regardless of it being 13 inch or 15 inch. the S13 is in a different weight class than any (decent) ultrabook or the Z, or even the UX32VD. compared to the S15 though, it's very similar, those 300 grams don't seem to matter that much (again, for me). portability is imo more hampered by the size, but that just means I'll get slightly bigger shoulder bag. if the S13 came with a decent panel I wouldn't even bother with the S15, but it's just so bad. My 5 year old Vaio with an old CCFL-lit TN panel is so much better than this display, and I'm not gonna downgrade from a 2008 midrange display. On the other hand you see what's possible in the S15, UX31A or Series 9 13" at similar or even cheaper price points, I don't get it. The major strength of Vaio notebooks to me has always been the display quality. Wasn't the S also available with the old Z full-HD display a few iterations back? I really wonder why Sony decided to cripple their absolutely famous combination of having the lightest and fastest machine on the market, supported by the best display.

 

This. It's why I started liking Vaio so much to begin with. I hope they up their game by defaulting to IPS screens soon enough (happy to see the Duo 11 sporting one of those), or their laptops will all be forgotten. It doesn't matter how good the performance-to-size ratio is if you have to stare at an ugly screen all day! Certainly not good when consumers will be comparing the laptops side-by-side with the competition, who, as you said, are offering better displays (often IPS) at lower price points.

Don't quote me on this, but I think the 1080p S screen wasn't the Z one, I seem to remember people reporting it as far worse (though not as bad as the 1600*900 one). It was a "Display Plus" rather than a "Display Premium", during the days when that actually meant something.

I haven't had a chance to see the screen of the new S13P, it claims to be "Display Premium", but so does nearly every screen on Vaio laptops nowadays it seems. I believe that used to be exclusive to the famed (aRGB) 1080p screens of the Z and F.

 

Well actually I think the S13A display is extremely bright, has a great resolution and for me the viewing angles are fine. I didnt expect anything else from a 13" Laptop. What does suck so is, that I noticed backlight bleeding on the top and bottom part of the display. There is a brighter area, especially in the bottom area. Several other S13A users mentioned the same. I am not sure if it is a problem ALL the S13A displays suffer from or just some of them. Anybody else with a uneven illumination (you notice it with darker scenes on the screen)?

 

^yes, my SA certainly has uneven back lighting. It does go very bright, this would make it decent for exterior use weren't the viewing angles so detrimental!

 

Really? What kind of weight do you expect?

The S15 is the lightest 15" laptop with dedicated GPU, tied with the Retina MBP (4.4 lbs). The S13P is almost a full pound lighter than the 13" MBP.

 

Yes, the weight is good for their size, but that's not what the discussion was about . When talking about portability today, nothing short of Ultrabooks can really be considered 'light', in my opinion. Anything over 1kg gets tiresome to lug around in one hand on long days.

 

^ i don't understand the reason for the comparison between a crippled product like an ultrabook to a VAIO S which includes full-voltage processor, a rather strong discrete GPU, and an optical disc drive. they are not in the same class.

 

^We were only comparing their weight, under the assumption that the power of a full voltage CPU isn't something everyone requires. Few people realize that the CPU is very rarely the limiting factor in their day to day computer use, unless you do a lot of video/3D rendering. But for those tasks you wouldn't be looking at any form of portable laptops anyway, except possibly the quad-core Z, as it performs well with the extra cores, although I've heard reports of it throttling down under intense usage (cooling system not keeping up).

Back in the day, low voltage CPUs with crappy disc drives used to mean crippled machines (laptops were crippled in general), Ultrabooks today really aren't crippled in any way for even an above average user. HD 4000 is not that much different in real world performance to the GPU in the SA (the Radeon 6630 one, I suppose the new Nvidia 640m card is much better), somewhat depending on the task. I've got both, and do gaming on both machines. Yes, the SA is better, but not by much.

For the record, including a disc drive on a portable computer is crippling in my opinion. It adds unnecessary bulk & weight.

But you're right, it's not fair to compare raw benchmark scores of a CULV/ULV to a full voltage processor. The SA would come out as a clear winner there.

Edit,
Sorry for going off topic.

 

Which ultrabook are you comparing it with?
Most of the 13.3" & 14" ultrabook are not that very much lighter. Mostly at a roughly 200-300 grams differences if you look at those 13.3 inchers, while the 14" mostly weight more than the Vaio S13P.
Like what darxide said, they are both in different class.
Your 6630M should be compared to a HD3000 at the time, while the HD4000 be compared to the GT640M LE.
Comparing a HD4000 to a GT640M LE is like double the performance differences. Not to mentioned the OCed GT640M LE.
Having a powerful, thin, & light notebook should by right have heat problem. But not with the new Vaio S.
The Vaio S cooling system are even better to some of the Ultrabook without a discrete graphics.

As for the display, yes, they are not that premium, but they are not that bad either. I have no issue whatsoever. But offcourse would be a plus if it is better.

 

please! this is just plain wrong. maybe we can discuss this further when you actually try running Battlefield 3 on the Intel HD4000 (i was very lenient and didn't say Intel HD3000).

i don't think so at all. i need the optical drive and am using it for my music collection. then again, we don't have to all agree on everything.

i'm sorry about being off-topic as well

 

The screen is not that bad at all. Actually, I think it's pretty decent for a TN panel. Wish Sony added an option for IPS display like the one in the Samsung's NP900X3C.

 

It's certainly possible, despite all its shortcomings re contrast, matte finish and backlight bleed, the panel is extremely colourful even sitting next to a high end monitor.

 

Sure: Review Sony Vaio SV-S13A1Z9E/S Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

Full-size image of sRGB coverage: http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/pics/6f98e612a7.png

It doesn't touch a workstation display (or desktop monitor) but it's decent enough to do most work on it unless you're adjusting curves on skin tones or anything like that.

 

Just discovered there could be at least some software contribution to the screen quality - when my external display is running at 60hz the colours and contrast are significantly worse than normal. This does not occur when it is plugged into any other machine at 60hz refresh rate.

When the issue is occurring, black is displayed as about 5-10% grey and everything is washed out.

Probably slightly flawed logic to apply the same issue to the built in display, but just thought I would mention the possibility.