Notebookcheck

Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Anti-Spam: Bitte NBC eingeben / Please enter NBC:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: iman
« on: May 06, 2015, 13:34:05 »

why toshiba p50t whuch has a better value is under v15 nitro?
Posted by: H.Y.Tan
« on: April 16, 2015, 14:36:22 »

Where are Asus NX500 which has 100% NTSC, ROG G501 and UX501 which both have 100% sRGB factory calibrated stated on paper? Hope to see it tested and listed in the table soon. Thank you.
Posted by: ac
« on: April 11, 2015, 02:30:19 »

Nice table but how do you sort it by viewing angle and srgb reproduction?
Posted by: MrSparc
« on: April 02, 2015, 03:03:35 »

Note to editor: Most of the new entries  in March update points to German reviews (.com) instead of translated ones at English site (.net)
Posted by: charles
« on: April 01, 2015, 11:47:27 »

what about ASUS Republic of Gamers G501, and the ZenBook Pro UX501?
Posted by: jim3
« on: March 14, 2015, 16:33:10 »

I love the tests on this site but the way they rank screens remains a mystery to me. They rank them by Adobe RGB coverage while almost all content you ever see is sRGB. Adobe RGB makes sense for photography ... but not when nearly all screens barely brake the 50% level. It would also be wrong to estimate the sRGB coverage from the Adobe RGB percentage because 65% Adobe may represent about 100% sRGB or just about 50% sRGB ... total non-sense in my opinion. Then I take offense with great screen rankings when the screen has too many pixels. Sorry, but Windows simply does NOT work with 4K. If you are not limited to the use of a very small number of programs - like for example exclusively Adobe software you simply cannot work with the sceen without setting it to a different resolution - and that means the screen quality has to be graded at THAT resolution. Also all mirror displays should get at least a 20% setback in that category. Oh yes, the Zenbook 500 is of course missing at the top (as is the ZBook 15 with DreamColor display). One other strange thing - notebookcheck.net systematically gets to different and normally worse measurment results than ANY other review site I ever came across. Over and over again NBC measures less gamut than anybody else. As I'm looking for a display with about 99+% sRGB all this is very annoying.
Posted by: sirkiwi
« on: March 03, 2015, 18:14:04 »

Excellent information. The minimum feature for me, at the very least, is a matte screen.
Posted by: John doe
« on: January 02, 2015, 09:21:44 »

The LP173WF3-which used in the elitebook 87x0w 16:9 models and Zbook 17 is the best. no grain effect (AG coating is not so strong, very comfortable), no annoying light bleeding, no color shift, no ghost. the PERFECT panel can used for laptop display indeed. It is shame that LG display is making blurry, eye-blowing craps instead this nowadays. also PWM pulsation is not seen in my 8760w.
Posted by: boomer
« on: December 14, 2014, 12:09:21 »

Interestingly the Samsung 156HL01-102 is listed twice as IPS and once as TN. It has different measured values too. Could this be a mistake?
Posted by: Dub Dublin
« on: September 17, 2014, 20:51:51 »

I'm a bit surprised not to see the Surface Pro 3 listed here (hell yes, it's a laptop).  I'm no fanboy, but I was blown away by the job Microsoft did on this thing - it's truly one of the best displays I've ever seen anywhere - and it's considerably cheaper than most of the competitors you list here, too.  It also gets bonus points in my book for its modern and useful 3:2 aspect ratio that doesn't force you to work through the 16:9 HD "mailslot".  (Only two of the laptops here are even 16:10, which is still pretty lame.)

As for PWM, I agree stats would be good.  PWM is a deal-killer for me - like LED taillights (yuck!), PWM for backlights is horrid and incredibly visually stressing.  I'm really not sure it's possible to crank the frequency up enough to keep it from sucking, since the blinking is the fundamental problem, and a great many people are obviously sensitive to it at frequencies that are "supposed to be" way beyond perceptible.
Posted by: AI
« on: September 13, 2014, 21:30:32 »

jza, yes.  I can't stand PWM monitors at all, horrible headache starts after 5 minutes. They should check it from now. Checking PWM and PWM's frequency takes maximum 30 sec. I just cant understand why they dont pay attention for it.
Posted by: brruno
« on: September 13, 2014, 01:30:56 »

Where are Clevo High Gamut displays ? they are pretty great....

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Eurocom-X3-Clevo-P157SM-Notebook.95124.0.html
Posted by: john
« on: July 20, 2014, 01:38:18 »

Posted by: jza
« on: July 19, 2014, 21:31:42 »

I would also like Notebookcheck to pay attention to PWM brightness control.
Posted by: Danilo S
« on: July 14, 2014, 16:54:09 »

Very interesting that U904 ranks so poorly, even though when you compare it to all the immediate neighbours in the table, it seems to win easily in most parameters.

FWIW, as an answer to Jeff Belin's first comment, Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus screen is not Sharp IGZO, afaik. Sharp's panels have no trouble rendering great colours (look up the yellow issues with Samsung's panels), and are brighter while still keeping a great contrast ratio.

 
» Impressum     Sprachen: Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | Svenska