What Type of Screen is the Z?

It's a known fact that the Z1 and Z2 screens are stunning. The question I have is what type panel is being used? Are there other laptops the utilize the same display?

What is it, technically, that makes the Z screens so darn rich and vibrant?

 

its a decent 8 bit TN panel.

and yes equivalent and better panels can be found in a number of thinkoads, AUSU units including the zen prime and workstation & business class units from Dell and HP

 

Define "better panels" on the other units. Not trolling, honestly want to know what they are and the attributes that make other screens better. Because to my knowledge, the Z has been regarded the best 13" screen for quite a long time, at least until the MBP retina comes out later this year.

 

Color saturation is fantastic. Viewing angles is where other might take the lead. (Not that their anything remotely as bad as the S series)

Lisa with Mobile Tech Review pitted the Z against the MacBook Pre Retina here.

Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display vs Sony VAIO Z 2012 Comparison Smackdown - YouTube

That should give you a good idea.

 

better panels, but not 13", such as the Precision colors and Dream colors are high end IPS, have far better viewing angles, can operate the full aRGB gamut and @ 1.1 billion colors, and are honestly pro grade external IPS screens stuffed into laptops. ( beat a Dell U2711 in calibration and destroy the Apple Cinema Display)

the retinas while sharp and good black levels, have crappy whitepoints and are 70% NTSC gamut, where even a Z2 can beat them in color accuracy. and I expect a retina 13" to be no better than that in the 15"

now for me better, is a screen I can do ACCURATE color work on for printing, video editing for broadcast and cinematography, and have lower gloss and no eyestrain from viewing angle distortions.

 

So, which of these are not satisfied by the 13" screen on the Asus UX31A?

 

Other than the fact that it has a tiny display, ULV CPU and completely inadequate GPU and cooling, and poor quality control?

It's a nice laptop, but hardly a professional-quality workstation.

 

I get what you're saying, but the topic were not workstations, but if there are better quality 13" screens from the one on the Z models suitable for graphics work (at least 8-bit, sRGB coverage, etc.). Come to think of it, the Asus screen coveres the sRGB spectrum, probably not not the adobe RGB, so that might be a reason.

 

yes the asus covers sRGB, at this time only a single 15" panel and a pair of 17" panels do aRGB.

 

Screen expert here! The screen on the current Sony VAIO Z3 is practically the best color gamut and viewing angles out of any laptop on the market. I've measured the gamut on Macbooks, iMacs, the Zenbook, and others. Nothing even comes close.

VAIO Z: 96% Adobe RGB, 100% sRGB
Macbook Air: 42% Adobe RGB, 63% sRGB
iMac: 82% Adobe RGB, 92% sRGB
Zenbook: 72% Adobe RGB, 98% sRGB

The VAIO Z is technically a Twisted Neumatic (TN) panel, but its an extremely high-end and modified one. The iMac and Zenbook's have IPS panel, but only they aren't really as good. The iMac has an HIPS panel which is rated extremely highly, but the color gamut isn't better than the VAIO Z. The Zenbook only has an eIPS which is technically just a TN panel with better viewing angles--and still only 14 million colours compared to a P-IPS or higher display with true 16.7 million colours and in 10-bit panels 1.07 billion.

I own a photo-editing company and my business partner and I have done extensive research on this topic. There is nothing that even comes close to the accuracy and screen quality of the Z.

Any questions, feel free to ask.

here is also an article to help understand screen types: Importance of Display Types

 

You really consider the Z to have good viewing angles? I've got the 1080 panel on the 2010 Z13 (similar to your 2011 and 2012 Zs just slightly cooler color temp) and the white starts becoming yellow and slightly unreadable on mine as I start to move about two feet left and right. Up and down angles are about the same.

 

For me, I think viewing angles on my Z1 (2010) with 1080p screen are okay. I can notice the color tint pink if I go left or right but it's still readable. However, I really don't find it to be bright enough at times.

 

Including the Precisions and Elitebooks with the 17" FHD IPS?

The Lenovo announcement for the new Yoga 13 mentions a 1600x900 IPS screen, so that might be something new for the 13" line (even if it's an eIPS).

 

I do believe our very knowledgeable colleague misspoke with the viewing angle comment about the Z3. He later clarified that to say: "There is nothing that even comes close to the accuracy and screen quality of the Z," which I took to mean accuracy and gamut, not viewing angle. At least I hope that's what he meant.

I agree completely with these assessments. For me, weak viewing angles on a 13" laptop are an inconvenience, but far from a deal killer. I have had no end of equivocation between the Z's FHD and 900p (no longer available as of Z3) screens and it's all about brightness and contrast, differences well born out by independent measurements, especially from . notebookcheck.net. It's not about the numbers, but the empirical convenience of using the laptop under bright lighting.Numerically the 900p screen had been measured at about 50 nit brighter (280 vs. 230) and nearly double the contrast ratio (roughly 600:1 on the FHD, 900-1100:1 on the 900p. (I find the difference to be far greater; a major source of confusion on the brightness difference is that the factory-stock registry settings restrict the full brightness of the 900p screen by some 25%, at least on the Z1; savvy NBR members discovered a simple registry hack "unlocks" the full intensity of the 900p screen's backlight. I doubt this major increase in brightness is reflected in any of the professional review measurements and, to my eye, the brightness difference appears to be more like 100 nit with the 900p's backlight "unleashed." Inexplicably, the Z1's FHD screen's maximum backlight intensity was programmed-in at the factory so it only further skewed the 900p screen's maximum brightness. )

I can assure you these differences are consistently noticeable (I've owned one of each for some time now!) and at times even in natural indoor daylight, I find the Z's FHD screen uncomfortably dim. The 900p's color specs are about on par with the Asus UX31A as krazycoo2 (and notebookcheck.net) reported them, so it's color gamut is in the top 5% of all laptop screens, but far inferior to the Z-FHD for professional level color work (how many professional photo/video/graphics professionals do their work on a 13" LCD screen?. The Z's FHD also has somewhat better viewing angles than the 900p and, of course, you can "see" far more text on a single page of the FHD - if you're in the minority of humans who can read text that small! There really is a good reason for my harping on comparisons to displays no longer on the market: other than viewing angles and perhaps resolution, that Z1/Z2 900p screen has all the major characteristics of the widely admired and increasingly demanded screens like those on the Asus Zenbook and Samsung 9 13." Thus it's fair to say that the now-popular small LCD display trail Sony has blazed with the Z beginning early 2010 is less from the "legendary" 13" FHD virtually perfect color reproduction marvel, but more from the 1600X900 ultra-bright, ultra-high contrast,hi resolution/legible text display still 100% sRGB gamut - that actually represented well more than 50% of the original Z's output. As high as the praise for the Asus FHD screen (minus the bleed) has been, it's the Samsung 9 13" 900p screen, no more than 65% sRGB gamut, that has actually captured more praise by the professional and user community.

In closing (I know, you thought I would never get there!), I think the supremacy of the Sony Z screens has pretty much come to an end (leaving professional level color work aside) just as the Z product line has apparently come to an end. Though I'm deeply disappointed at the thought that Sony will no longer blaze the trail for the best ultraportable that can be built to reliably perform, I'm far more excited that the industry has finally moved display quality into the forefront of laptop attributes and, with or without Sony leading the way, consumers will never again have to settle for low res, dim, no contrast, poor viewing angle displays unless they are willing to pay more than $2,000 - often far more!

Pardon my moment of euphoria - and going quite a bit off-topic - but I really believe that, by Spring 2013 (due to Haswell, further economies of scale of better display technology, shockingly plunging SSD costs and other engineering/manufacturing advances already in use) little more than $1,000 (certainly no more than $1,200) will offer a dizzying array of choices of laptops and hybrids that are better in every respect than this year's $2,500 Sony Zs (again, perfect color screen excepted). I'm talking sub-3 lb, extremely powerful ULV cpus and IGPs, 128-256GB SSDs, 12"-14" super-bright and colorful 150-220 p.p.i. IPS screens, virtually instant boot up and 8-12 real battery life. At risk in my euphoric scenario: more than 2 ports and decent touchpads! (though touchscreens may be their salvation.) If I'm remotely close in this assessment, it leaves an interesting question up for grabs: What's going to induce people to keep overpaying for Macbooks?!!

Thanks for indulging me in this; I'm genuinely jazzed by where things are going and how fast, and somehow I think the revolution in display technology is the final frontier to bring class-A ultraportables to the masses, so the thread's theme is truly relevant. Please, if you have a suggestion for a better place to post the euphoric prognostications portion of this thread, let me know and I will move it.

 

AnandTech - Sony Vaio Z2: Everything is Peripheral

 

The first of the two screens reviewed by notebookcheck.net below is the 900p screen in the Z21. The second one, below the dotted line, is from a review of the Z13 with the 1080p/FHD screen. To my knowledge, the FHD panel in the Z2, as measured in the Anandtech charts, above, is the same as the one in the Z13, measured in the notebookcheck.net charts below the dotted line in this post. Andandtech took some different measurements and may have used different instrumentation. It's interesting that the color information appears consistent but the contrast, and therefore likely the measured brightness of the FHD in the Z2 measured by Anandtech are both higher than the measurements of the supposedly same FHD in the Z13 measured by notebookcheck.net, though brightness, black value and contrast test the highest (lowest for black value) in the notebookcheck.net's test of the 900p screen in the Z21. (Note that the Asus Zenbook UX31E screens in the Anandtech charts are of the 2011 model, not the IPS 2012 model, which ironically was even brighter than the new IPS version, but had terrible contrast and color characteristics. The far superior color and contrast measurements reported by krazycoo2 for the UX31A are consistent with others I have seen.)


Conclusions????? All of the Z panels were superb and few others were even decent (save HP's workstaton only DC2 and the once "legendary" and very short-lived 14.5" "Radiance" screen from the original 2010 HP Envy 14, no relation to current HP Envy screens using the same marketing label "Radiance" today.) I think if the current Asus 13" IPS and Samsung 13" PLS were included they would exceed all but the Sonys and the HPs. The FHD vendor or specs may have changed between the Z1 and Z2 (though I'm virtually positive they did not), or, if the screens are supposed to be identical, there is a great deal of variation unit to unit which would also be surprising given the 200 pt difference in contrast measurement. Certainly the instrumentation may not have been consistent and/or properly calibrated by either Anandtech or notebookcheck. Finally, could there have been a backlight change to both Z2 screens vs. their Z1 predecessors, but I don't think that is a likely.

Reprinted below: 900p screen on Sony Z21 (2011 Sandy Bridge version)
Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-VPC-Z21Q9E-B-Subnotebook.61141.0.html

" Display

Things are getting interesting: What makes Sony one of the main contenders in the battle for an all round successful notebook? The key data sounds promising: 13.1 inch, anti-reflective surface, 1600x900 pixels, in the basic version.
Our measurements confirm the expected good results: Maximum 307 candela per square meter, 285 cd/m² on average, illumination about 82 percent - perfect for a mobile notebook, such as the Sony Vaio Z21 aspires to be.

For professional users with elevated demands regarding resolution (multitasking, tools, etc.), and other Full HD enthusiasts, Sony offers an upgrade to a 1080p display in the online configuration. The price: A mere 40 euros additionally. In light of the basic price of about 2000 euros, this is likely to be an inconsequential sum. How good the brightness and color space of the display are remains uncertain so far though. The Full HD display was able to make a good impression in the predecessor model though [though clearly not nearly as good as thZ2's FHD based on Anandtech's measurements - comment of lovelaptops, not from actual published review]


Information
Gossen Mavo-Monitor
Maximum: 307 cd/m²
Average: 284.8 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 82 %
Center on Battery: 298 cd/m²
Black: 0.26 cd/m²
Contrast: 1146:1
ICC File (Datacolor Spyder3Elite)
Distribution of brightness

To confirm whether or not the display really is particularly good (SNY06FA), we have to complete two other obligatory measurements: Contrast and color space.
We measured the black level in the central area of the display with the maximum brightness: 0.26 cd/m² - exceptional. With this the HD+ display can score points with an exceptionally good maximum contrast ratio of 1146:1.

No less impressive is the representable color space. sRGB is more than covered, only when filling the large AdobeRGB color space do shortcomings begin to emerge. The color space is not longer completely covered, and also when compared to the elite display Sony Vaio VPC-Z13 with a Full HD display, the VPC-Z21 with HD+ falls behind. A comparison to the alternative Full HD display panel would also be interesting in this case."




Z21 vs. sRGB




Z21 vs. AdobeRGB




Z21 vs. Z13FHD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted below: Review of Sony Z13 FHD display
Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Sony-Vaio-VPC-Z13Z9E-i7-FHD-Quad-SSD-subnotebook.45351.0.html Display



We wanted to put the display through the normal row of tests as it represents a highlight not only in the field of subnotebooks, but also in respect to ALL notebooks. The designation WUXGA Non-Glare stands for a resolution of 1.920x1.080 pixels, which is extremely seldom in such a small form factor. The display was given an anti-glare finish for reflection-free use.

Information
Gossen Mavo-Monitor
Maximum: 243 cd/m²
Average: 236.3 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 240 cd/m²
Black: 0.37 cd/m²
Contrast: 649:1ICC File (X-Rite i1Display 2)


The extensive color space of the Z13 trumps the much-cited MacBook Pro 13 1020-04 display as well as the Radiance Infinity Display of the HP Envy 14-1010eg. The Z13 only has a tough time of it against the enormous color space of the HP pro-workstation EliteBook 8740w (DreamColor).



ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs sRGB (t)




ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs AdobeRGB (t)




ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs WideGamut (t)




ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs MBPro13 2010-04 (t)




ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs HP Envy 14-1010eg Radiance Infinity (t)

ICC Vaio Z13Z9E vs HP EliteB. 8740w Dreamcolor (t)

(Sure hope someone finds this stuff interesting because it sure turned out to be a PITA to assemble with my meager text/image management skills!)

 

Thanks for the work you put into your reply lovelaptops, I found it very telling why even now, 2.5 years after it was built, my Z12's screen trumps nearly everything in terms of color coverage.

I set it up next to the "Retina" Macbook Pro for fun earlier and immediately could tell the greens and blues were noticeably less vibrant on the Apple display

Reds were actually fairly close, though even there they weren't as powerful and appeared more dull on the Apple...

Some may call it nit-picking, however, when you want the most accurate colors possible (on a portable display) other panels simply often do not match up :-/

Still waiting for a screen on a 13-15in portable laptop that can trump it (That being said, the viewing angles on the rMBP were definitely a lot better, understandable as it's TN vs IPS)

 

Just wanted to chime in with non-scientific observations.
My Z11 was down for a few weeks and I was using a lenovo x1 Carbon. A matte non IPS display @ 1600x900. While the display was fine, I yearned for my z11. I am back using my Z and I am loving it. Vastly superior to the x1carbon.

 

Thank you for your most gracious response. Truth is, there aren't many things I know much about, but Sony Z screens is one of the few! Something got me started - I think it was a perpetual inability to decide whether I preferred the legendary FHD with its ability to reproduce colors that actually never appear in life or nature, but if it's on a Pantone chart, you can see it with near perfect fidelity on the Z's 1080p screen! Yes, this was meant to come out tongue-in-cheek. Owning one of each (my Z13 had the 900p and my Z22 has the FHD) I'm finally in a position to compare, contrast, live with one for a while then switch to the other and see if I sense a major difference and if so which one I prefer.

Since I've already said more than there actually is to say (read my posts carefully and you'll see I keep repeating the same points over and over, lol!), I don't feel I should hog much more valuable space on NBR, but I do have a couple of new things to say, some of which apply to well, 015734's post, above (imaginitive screen id, btw ) and some to MFPreach's, below:

1) I am ready to pronounce my FINAL decision about the two Z screens. It will surprise few who have read my previous obsessive analyses to hear that I am unequivocally and irreversibly convinced that the superior screen for the Z - and thus for any 13" laptop yet created is: the 1600x900 Z display! It's a combination of brightness, contrast and my personal need for text that is scaled no smaller than the 140 ppi pitch native to this size display. Though I do appreciate in some graphics and artwork the extended color palette of the FHD it's rare that I view such content and only when I have the same image displayed at the same brightness level side-by-side can I actually detect any difference, and even then it's marginal and rare. I do also appreciate the appearance of graphics that have perfectly smooth curves and have become annoyingly aware of the slightly jagged lines that the 900p screen presents with 1080p images. But I just adore everything else about my Z13's screen and when I switch to it after using the other for a few days it's a feeling of "aahhh, that's really nice!" Moreover I have come to believe that just as resolution below 140 ppi is no longer acceptable on any device's panel, I also think that brightness much below 300 nit is really fatiguing in a bright room, whether from natural sunlight through windows or piercingly bright incandescent or, worse, flourescent lighting. And outdoors, fuggedaboudit! In fact, the standard for outdoors should probably be a more properly matte finish than the Z's semi-matte/slightly glossy/mostly glare free depending on the ambient light source and, in any event, that it needs to be at least 400 nit. While I realize that such brightness has previously exacted a very inconvenient toll on battery life, my understanding is that newer screen technology, such as Sharp's IGZO (pronounced: "IGZO" ) is far more energy efficient while also being brighter. That's it. Done. Finished. I will attempt to never again express an opinion about these two panels unless asked for it, and I may try to improve my reputation for blather by simply providing a one-word link to this very post! I'm almost done, but see below for final parting shot...

Not having used or even seen the X1C in real life, I am very curious to know this: how did it feel to go back to the Z1's keyboard after several weeks of the walk-on-water Thinkpad keyboard? I realize that the one on the X1C is considered inferior to the other TPs because of the short stroke owing to the ultrabook-like thinness of the chassis, but my guess is that it's no shorter than that of the Z1s, which many complained about when it was first released and was the thinnest gun in town.

The reason I ask is because the most analogous experience I have is switching between the Z1 and Z2. Here I'm ready to make another FINAL pronouncement of my own opinion: after typing for even a few hours on the Z2 I find I have carpal-tunnel pains in my arms and wrists and no matter how long I use the Z2 exclusively and get so I can type just as fast and not keep missing characters, it always feels wonderful to go back to my trusty Z1. I have really given the Z2 every opportunity to convince me that it's utility can be sufficient to justify retiring my Z13 (for those who haven't experienced it, 12 second cold reboots have much to be recommended - vs. 25-30 on my 256GB dual SSD Z13) but then not only do I have to continuously convince myself that if I just type properly and not leave my wrists lazily on the palm rests (really more like wrist rests!) - and this does improve the fatigue and pain in my arms, but unless I'm sitting in the perfect chair and the laptop is at the perfect (as in, lower than desk height) position, it's too uncomfortable in other ways to hold my wrists up - even though my 8th grade typing teacher (they had those in the 60s!) would rap your desk with her ruler if she caught you typing that way! And when I get to feeling that I can make do with the keyboard to get the lovely speed of the 1000MB/s SSDs and the absurdly faster than I ever need SB Core i7-2640, I have one of those maddeningly annoying experiences with that infernal teeny-tiny weird textured intermittently unresponsive (and always much slower) "clickpad!" or, lest I forget to remind you, miss the tiny right shift key and hit the page up or page down key instead. Oh, and did I mention the on-again/off-again single USB3 port on the Z2 which spends most of its time at USB2 speed (vs. the USB3 ExpressCard's always perfect FOURTH USB port on the Z1), not to mention the numerous USB dongle controlled devices I own and use keeping 1 or 2 semi-permanently in one of the 4 (including the handy EC USB3/ESATA port) USB ports of the Z13...

I keep thinking that I have to let go of the Z1 the way I had to wean my daughter off her pacifier and then her blanket, but until 2013 or 2014, when I either really need the power if Haswell cpus (for what, that I do anyway?) or can't live with the paltry 450MB/s RAID0 SSD (same 20MB/s 4k random write speed as the SATA III Z2's SSDs), there is really no reason not to continue to use my trusty Z13 (only reaching its first birthday this coming December, as I found it as a closeout on Blinq.com for $1,100 last December!) as my daily driver, at least outside my office. If the Ultrabooks could get their acts together and produce a product with a decent keyboard and touchpad, 3 USBs, an ethernet port that doesn't require a dongle and, of course, a screen at least as good as the Samsung 900X3x series - the only acceptable substitute to date for my beloved 900p Z screen and either get the 8+ hrs I get from 2 fully charged extended Z1 batteries from its sealed thingy, or accommodate changeable or slice batteries, and have at least 8GB RAM (in this day and age, to abandon my Z1, it should be at least 12GB) and have a 512GB SSD (which, when I need it, will be easily done in my Z13 for probably $100 by then by yanking my DVD and putting a stupidly fast - though running at SATA2 - additional 256GB of SSD space - not to mention the TWO SD card slots, the only thing good to say about Sony's ridiculous insistence on persisting with that "magic carpet card" or whatever they're calling it these days! - which easily provide an additional 128GB of storage compared to 1/2 that on the UB....and they do this for about $500 less than $1,800, which is the current price of the Samsung 9, Thinkpad X1C or ASUS UX31A with 256GB (sometimes slllooowww) SSD and 8GB RAM- if they ever actually have them available for sale in those configurations, which to my knowledge none have ever been available, at least not in the U.S.

So, I lovingly take care of my Z13, palm rests, touchpad and lid protected by some SGP ugly stuff, being oh-so-careful opening and closing the lid, which is still as stiff as new 9 months later and I sit in wonder as I think that this computer was first offered for sale in March of 2010 and three years later I doubt a reasonable substitute, much less truly more capable - unless you do heavy duty video transcoding or run 6 VMs simultaeously, in which case the Z2/SV13 (R.I.P.) may be the only real option.

I guess I could have shortened this post without losing any useful content by just quoting the two above and saying: couldn't agree more!

Oh, I guess it stands to reason that if anyone really craves my gold Z22 (see sig) I've pretty much talked myself out of it. This is not an offer to sell, which is not legal to mention in a post on NBR unless you have a for sale ad in Marketplace. So consider it editorial content that I've decided the Z2 offers me nothing more that I need - and a whole lot less that I want - than my Z13, and since I own several other perfectly usable backup ultraportables in case the Z13 gets a sore throat, it stands to reason that my Z22 is officially "surplus." Anyone have any idea how you sell one of these things?

Keep those cards and letters coming.

 

The Lenovo W530 FHD laptop display is meant to be excellent. I just ordered a unit to replace the shocking Sony S15 orangegate display. I did some more research this time and it covers 95% of the Adobe RGB color space and "The total amount of colors that the display can reproduce is 1097398 and exceeds that of all currently available notebooks." - That is over 1 Million colours. It also has excellent brightness levels:

"We begin with the very impressive brightness level. We measured between 253 cd/m² and 274 cd/m² at nine points. In addition to the good luminosity, the brightness differences were very low resulting in very good brightness distribution of 92%."

Information
Gossen Mavo-Monitor
Maximum: 274 cd/m²
Average: 259.3 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 274 cd/m²
Black: 0.51 cd/m²
Contrast: 537:1
ICC File (X-Rite i1Display 2)

- All spec info from notebookcheck.com

If you are looking for a laptop with a great screen that is not a brick (only 2.8Kg), is business grade and has excellent battery life (10+ hrs on 9 cell), I think this should be on your list.

I hope Sony fix the issues on the S15 IPS display in the near future, how they can even offer that product to consumers is beyond me. I mean it is an IPS display, it is meant to offer great colours and viewing angles yet it has terrible colour reproduction.

 

this I find amusing, off the top of my head I can think of 3 laptops with 10bit/primary displays that my spyder calibrator itself says calibrates to close to the full 1.1 billion colors.

 

Wow, what a post.
I found the throw on the X1C to be less than that of the Z1, it was noticeable for me. However, I have not used any other ultrabooks but I imagine it's better than others. The keyboard was nice don't get me wrong but I probably and used to using the Z1's for 2 years.

As for my palm rest, it is a faded mess!
Don't take my post to say that the X1C is a bad computer, it is amazing. I just didn't find the display as nice.

 

Yes I also find that bit of info from notebookcheck a little strange. First of all 1.1Million colours does not sound right, even an 8 bit display can do many times that. I am guessing they were thinking 10bit (Billion) not million... that is all I can think of because I imagine almost any modern display can show a greater total number of colors than 1M, this would make their sentence ridiculous.

I have found notebookcheck to normally be fairly good with their info, I guess they made a typo here.

 

I have found them to be conscientious in the past too, but they've been getting sloppy lately. Case in point: this review of the Sony SVZ13 last month. They clearly had a defective unit or were using improper power settings because they were getting clock speeds of less than 1.6gHz from the cpu and performance at about the level of a strong netbook (!) but rather than correct the problem or get another unit to test, they simply completed the entire review and indicated that was subject to change if/when they get another unit to test and if it produced different results (sounding as if it was an open question as to whether an IB i7-3612Q might be testing correctly with a Cinebench R11 score of 1.87pts when it universally scores over 5.5 pts). As an aside, it was a little disconcerting that they also measured the new Z's FHD monitor at an average brightness of less than 200 nit. Not being sure if the cpu problem would effect the brightness, it would be disappointing if in that aspect the report was correct and the quality of the latest Z FHD screen is unreliable. That screen has tested several times in other Z's and always had uniform average brightness of 235-240. Also, they reported the SVZ''s FHD screen had a contrast ratio of 690:1 whereas the tests from Anandtech (truly the gold standard in tech testing) supplied by Qwaarjet below showed the Z2 with FHD had about 850:1 contrast ratio. (Like i said before, I allocate an inordinate number of brain cells to to Sony Z statistics )

 

Are you serious? Z has a poor viewing angle,even compared to some other TN panels, and a bad color accuracy.

 

perhaps you take a bit of time reading through all posts in this thread plus the test around the Z screen and then re-think about your post?

 

I was reading this post as i've bought a Vaio SA laptop with Vaio "Plus" 1600x900 px rez.
The thing is, I had previously a Dell XPS m1330 with LED backlight which has a 500:1 contrast and very low black.
I'm really disappointed. Why newer laptop offers such bad quality screen comparing to 4 years ago laptops ?
It is like the best screens are reserved for ipad & co, and not any more to laptops

 

I know the feeling mate. There is laptops with very good displays out there, it's just you often need to pay a big premium for them.

Not sure what the specs of your Sony is but if you are not happy and can still get a refund, have you looked at the Lenovo X230? It has a nice IPS display option, same resolution as you mentioned, i7 3520m CPU and it's only 1.5KG.

Lenovo have a very limited time 30% off weekend sale but the e-coupon may still work, try code: WSOC3420 - should work on all laptops. We are talking savings of over $1000 on some models so def worth a look to see if you can find something you like in their line-up if you are not happy with the Sony screen.

 

Well, for a 15' display which is considered to be the best panel?

 

the BEST 15" display is the Elitebook 8570W with the Dreamcolor 2 IPS screen option. it is a high end 10 bit per primary color screen ( 1.1 billion colors ) fully calibratable to full aRGB gamut. full deepcolor support and on the fly sRGB/NTSC/Rec 701 and aRGB conversions. makes many a high end external screen look pretty bad.

now admittedly it is a portable workstation made for design pros and people needing some of its features. the Dell Precision m4600 did have a similar screen option but the optional screen upgrade was pulled as Dell was having issues with the particular panel they were using.

you would also have to define " best " are you talking gamut, whitepoint, black levels, resolution, viewing angles, refresh rate, etc?