Laptop LCD Roundup: Road Warriors Deserve Better
by Jarred Walton on May 22, 2007 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Closing Thoughts
The results of our testing are at the same time both surprising and somewhat expected. They are expected when we consider that using only our naked eyes, we can clearly see that all of the displays provide a less desirable image than just about any desktop LCD we have used in recent years. The surprising aspect is just how bad many of the displays scored, particularly in terms of color accuracy. While there are almost certainly other laptops that have LCD panels that can rival the ASUS G2P, there are plenty of others that more likely than not rate about as high as the ASUS A8Js. We're also more than a little shocked that ASUS managed to provide both the best and worst display experience of this roundup, which goes to prove that there's far more to this than simply choosing a reputable manufacturer.
We will continue to review this important aspect of notebook computers on all future laptop reviews, and over time we will be able to see how future products compare to this initial roundup. Sadly, unlike with desktop systems you can't simply choose which display suits you best and pair that up with the components you want. If that were the case, we would at minimum want notebook displays that could match the quality of the ASUS G2P, whether in 12", 14", 15", or 17" notebooks. In fact, the G2P has become one of our favorite notebooks simply because of the stellar display quality relative to other notebooks, and since we don't often require high-end gaming performance from a laptop we would be more than willing to sacrifice some graphics performance in order to get a better display. Of course, not everyone would agree with that sentiment.
As good as the ASUS G2P is when compared to these other notebooks, however, the overall display quality is still clearly inferior to most desktop LCDs. Viewing angles are similar to what we have seen on the 22" LCDs, and the Acer AL2216W has the worst viewing angles of any of the high-end desktop LCDs that we've reviewed so far; it makes us wonder where the S-IPS and S-PVA notebook LCDs are hiding. Color accuracy is also still an order of magnitude lower than any of the desktop LCDs we've looked at in the past six months, and although we find it more than sufficient for our use we imagine imaging professionals at the very least would want something better. For a 17" laptop, we would also prefer a native LCD resolution of at least 1680x1050 (without sacrificing the brightness and other qualities currently offered). In short, as usual, we want more!
The good news is that with many new technologies being researched and the potential for OLED displays to make all of our current LCD preconceptions a moot point in the future, hopefully the only direction to go from here is up. We're working on getting more notebooks for review, specifically some of the new Santa Rosa models, and in the very near future we will see whether anything has changed in regards to notebook LCDs. All of these laptops are, after all, at least six months old. However, notebook computers do tend to have longer life spans as they cost more and take more time to pass through the R&D process. Dell's XPS M1710 for example has been around for over a year now, with no discernible change in the LCD quality during that time. We would like to think that it's about time for some updates to arrive, but time will tell.
As a final comment, we have only tested a very small number of laptops at this point in time. We would be extremely interested in testing more displays, and if anyone has connections with some of the larger laptop manufacturers we would be interested in working with you - particularly if you feel your notebooks can excel in the area of display quality. Stay tuned for future laptop reviews where we will continue to look into this subject as well as performance and other features.
The results of our testing are at the same time both surprising and somewhat expected. They are expected when we consider that using only our naked eyes, we can clearly see that all of the displays provide a less desirable image than just about any desktop LCD we have used in recent years. The surprising aspect is just how bad many of the displays scored, particularly in terms of color accuracy. While there are almost certainly other laptops that have LCD panels that can rival the ASUS G2P, there are plenty of others that more likely than not rate about as high as the ASUS A8Js. We're also more than a little shocked that ASUS managed to provide both the best and worst display experience of this roundup, which goes to prove that there's far more to this than simply choosing a reputable manufacturer.
We will continue to review this important aspect of notebook computers on all future laptop reviews, and over time we will be able to see how future products compare to this initial roundup. Sadly, unlike with desktop systems you can't simply choose which display suits you best and pair that up with the components you want. If that were the case, we would at minimum want notebook displays that could match the quality of the ASUS G2P, whether in 12", 14", 15", or 17" notebooks. In fact, the G2P has become one of our favorite notebooks simply because of the stellar display quality relative to other notebooks, and since we don't often require high-end gaming performance from a laptop we would be more than willing to sacrifice some graphics performance in order to get a better display. Of course, not everyone would agree with that sentiment.
As good as the ASUS G2P is when compared to these other notebooks, however, the overall display quality is still clearly inferior to most desktop LCDs. Viewing angles are similar to what we have seen on the 22" LCDs, and the Acer AL2216W has the worst viewing angles of any of the high-end desktop LCDs that we've reviewed so far; it makes us wonder where the S-IPS and S-PVA notebook LCDs are hiding. Color accuracy is also still an order of magnitude lower than any of the desktop LCDs we've looked at in the past six months, and although we find it more than sufficient for our use we imagine imaging professionals at the very least would want something better. For a 17" laptop, we would also prefer a native LCD resolution of at least 1680x1050 (without sacrificing the brightness and other qualities currently offered). In short, as usual, we want more!
The good news is that with many new technologies being researched and the potential for OLED displays to make all of our current LCD preconceptions a moot point in the future, hopefully the only direction to go from here is up. We're working on getting more notebooks for review, specifically some of the new Santa Rosa models, and in the very near future we will see whether anything has changed in regards to notebook LCDs. All of these laptops are, after all, at least six months old. However, notebook computers do tend to have longer life spans as they cost more and take more time to pass through the R&D process. Dell's XPS M1710 for example has been around for over a year now, with no discernible change in the LCD quality during that time. We would like to think that it's about time for some updates to arrive, but time will tell.
As a final comment, we have only tested a very small number of laptops at this point in time. We would be extremely interested in testing more displays, and if anyone has connections with some of the larger laptop manufacturers we would be interested in working with you - particularly if you feel your notebooks can excel in the area of display quality. Stay tuned for future laptop reviews where we will continue to look into this subject as well as performance and other features.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
Myrandex - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
I am not all that opposed to lower resolution screens when it comes to a laptop. Laptop video chipsets are often times slow enough as it is, and when my 7200 G0 64MB (256MB TC) is attempted to be used for gaming, 1280x800 gives a much better experience then some 1980x1600 breatly resolution.MrPickins - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
4 screens, and not a single one a 15" model? How does that constitute a "roundup"?This article needs far more models tested to be worthwhile.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
It's a roundup of what we have right now. I have some 15" laptops coming for review, and if this wasn't made clear we will be performing these same tests on all future laptop reviews. This was just a way to jump start things before the laptops we currently have are sent back.MrPickins - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Don't get me wrong, I like the article's intent, and the tests run. I just feel it would have been better to wait and give a large comparison all at one time, rather than piecemeal.EarthsDM - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Great article. If you guys wouldn't mind, could you do these tests to the MacBook and MacBook Pro? In light of this new lawsuit (see below) I'd like to know how good my MacBook Pro's display is, i.e. 6-bit or 8-bit. Thanks!http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/05/...">http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.a...it-over-...
http://www.appledefects.com/?p=282">http://www.appledefects.com/?p=282
heulenwolf - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Great job on the article. I had no idea the G2P's display was so demonstrably superior to the competition. I'd be interested to see these tests performed with two more variables:1) How do screen options within a single laptop model score? For example, if you get a Dell Inspiron with the default screen vs the upsell for the "Ultrasharp" model. Such a comparison could also give you two systems that are alike in every other way so you could discern the impact of the "better" screen on battery life
2) I always hear about how Macs are better for multimedia applications. Does the colorimeter and software work with Macs, as well? If so, I'd be interested to see whether their color accuracy is truly better than those of competing laptops.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
I'd assume you could test the colorimeter on a Mac running Windows, shouldn't affect the screen quality.bldckstark - Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - link
Apparently recent testing on the Mac's have shown that the display performs better under Windows than OSx. This is one of the reasons they are being sued right now for claiming better visual representation than "regular" notebooks, when they appear to be the same as all the rest.I don't know anyone who has a Macbook, Pro or not so I have not seen this.
I have been on the edge of buying a Macbook for some time, but when push came to shove, I bought a Lenovo. It is hard to find someone (now I am sure millions will reply since I said this) that thinks the other manufacturers are even in the same league as IBM was. So far Lenovo has been doing a good job of keeping the Thinkpad up to snuff, so I couldn't reasonably spend my money on something I had never seen before and had no consistency in manufacturing from one model to the other. Besides, there is that keyboard 8^)
jelifah - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
This article was TREMENDOUSLY helpful. As most laptops are bought online it is impossible to be able to determine what an LCD looks like, short of going to a company's kiosk.Please continue to do reviews like this.
mostlyprudent - Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - link
Agreed. It's about time someone included one of the most important part of a laptop in the review process. I also appreciated the comparison to desktop LCDs. I have been sticking with my CRT, in part, because of the stark difference in viewing quality between my laptop and desktop PCs.