6930p screen - LED vs non-LED ?

Discussion in 'HP Business Class Notebooks' started by Matta, Jun 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chrixx

    chrixx Product Specialist NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    641
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    The manufacture date given by PC Wizard/Everest/etc is incorrect. The LCD displays are pretty new because the parts are different from the older models.
     
  2. blackshard83

    blackshard83 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    43
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Yup I know they're using rectangular non-removable batteries. Some says that MacOS X is also tweaking cpu voltages :)
    BTW here:

    http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3580&p=2

    there's a nice review, and I never saw 8 hours of lifetime with a 75Wh battery! Actually they almost doubled previous lifetime, I think led-based display is helping very much!

    Fitting bunches of rectangular inexpensive phone batteries would be a great idea :D till you'll have to recharge all of them :rolleyes:
     
  3. Th3_uN1Qu3

    Th3_uN1Qu3 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    214
    Messages:
    1,192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I have the charging aspect covered already. :D I did read Anand's article on the new macbook a couple months ago, but honestly i don't consider that real-world use.

    It will get 4-5 hours with regular usage, and that's not too hard to achieve with a "normal" notebook and a 12-cell battery. The 12-cell on my dv9700 only has 60% of its capacity left as reported by Everest, yet it still gets 2:50. That's with what i consider "real-world" usage, ie some GTAIV and a movie.
     
  4. jke

    jke Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    51
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I used "PC Wizard" ..but as Chrixx said:

    ..I then also opened the panel and checked the stickers on the back of the display module. Turns out it's from September 2008 (not 2007).
     
  5. jke

    jke Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    51
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Coming back to the initial question of a comparison between both screens:

    I recently found another 6930p with a WXGA (1280x800) LED ("Illumi-Lite") screen for sale and instantly bought it - mainly because I wanted to have a direct comparison of the screen to my existing 6930p with a WXGA+ CCFL (1440x900) display. I urgently needed to know what I'd miss out otherwise - especially since I really like the WXGA+ LED on my friend's ThinkPad T500 or the LED screens on both my eee netbooks. The ultimate plan of course was to swap both display...

    So, for everyone who's ever been wondering about the difference between the WXGA+ CCFL and the WXGA LED screen, here's my visual take on it. Enjoy!

    LEFT: HP 6930p with WXGA LED, Intel 4500MHD, DISPLAY = Samsung LTN141AT06, WXGA = 1280 x 800, 2.344gr with 6cell battery attached

    RIGHT: HP 6930p with WXGA+ CCFL, ATI 3450, Display = AUO AUO3047 (accidentaly deleted the pics that show the actual part number of the screen), WXGA+ = 1440 x 900, 2.424gr with 6cell battery attached

    Displays set to maximum brightness.

    Indoors, in a darkened room:

    [​IMG]
    90°

    [​IMG]
    ~140°

    [​IMG]
    ~ 75°

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    With flash.

    Outside:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    @ minimum brightness (!)

    A full set of images is available here.

    My preliminary verdict is that the LED version isn't much better on the HP.

    I don't know what's so "Illumi-Lite" about the LED screens, but viewing angles aren't any way better than on the WXGA+ CCFL version. And those are really horrible as the user "students" already mentioned. Even the LED on my Asus eee 1000HG is better than this HP Illumi-Lite LED (and the LED on the 1000HG is worse than the one on the 1000H, btw).

    [​IMG]
    HP 6930p LED vs. Asus eee 10000HG LED

    Colours are much more vivid on the small eee LED as well as on the WXGA+ CCFL - even though the opposite seems to be true judging by the images alone. I am afraid I really couldn't catch this on camera. I also asked my wife (as an outsider) to judge on picture quality and she also preferrred the CCFL version. The WXGA LED clearly wasn't designed for any colour editing even though HP calls this a business machine. I wonder why HP sells these screens. The LED version may be better compared to the CCFL WXGA version, but it isn't compared to the WXGA+ (and I am saying this as a former nx8220 user which only had WXGA and was ok for me).

    The LED version has a really nice battery runtime compared to the 12W-sucking ATI gfx. I'd say it's about an hour you get on top of the WXGA+ / ATI version, but of course this solely depends on what you're using on the machine.

    I really like the way brightness is set on an LED screen, but this version here has some dead pixel which is why I won't exchange it with the one on my ATI machine. I'll have to sent it back to dealer and yes, I could also send it to HP for a repair, but the last time I did so, these folks from JABIL in Poland removed the business card holder on the back for no apparent reason and also never fixed the display lock so I am trying to avoid these folks by any means.

    Another advantage on the LED version is that there's no light leakage as seen on the bottom row of my WXGA+ screen.

    I think that HP really has to rethink the LED strategy (if any) and do it like DELL when they announced that all notebooks shall from now on come with an LED screen. HP, are you listening?
     
  6. chrixx

    chrixx Product Specialist NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    641
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Excellent comparisons! I'm quite surprised to find that the brightness on the LED screen isn't much better than the WXGA+ (which appears brighter from your photos). Are the whites and blacks on the LED display better? Between these, I'd obviously opt forthe WXGA+ option as the battery life doesn't seem very significant between the 2.
     
  7. jke

    jke Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    51
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Thx!

    I'd say that the whites are better on the LED and that the blacks are better on the CCFL/WXGA+.

    [​IMG]
    A white background on the WXGA LED

    [​IMG]
    white on WXGA+ CCFL

    The WXGA+ on my 6930p is very much similar to the WSXGA+ that used to ship with the former nx/nc8200/8230/8240 range, similar colours and narrow viewing angles.

    The improved battery runtime really seems to be the only advantage of the LED.
     
  8. highlandsun

    highlandsun Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    66
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Unfortunately this comparison doesn't tell you what's the actual cause for the quality differences you've observed. Viewing angles are entirely determined by the LCD panel technology, not by the backlight. Evenness of light and light leaking are determined by the precision of the assembly procedure, mating the light spreader to the light emitter. I guess it may be possible to make LED emitters narrower than CCFLs, so the light spreader can mount more completely, but overall the spreaders are the same basic technology - just a flat sheet of translucent plastic that takes light in on one edge and diffuses it through the whole sheet.

    And yes, common "white" LEDs actually use a blue LED emitter in a case coated with yellow phosphorous. The blue light excites the phosphorous into glowing yellow and the two combine to yield white. It works OK for the most part but it's still not as good for color rendition as actual R,G,B. The problem with RGB LEDs is that it's difficult to position them close enough so that all 3 outputs blend evenly. You'll usually see ghosts where their output fields don't overlap perfectly. E.g., in one region the R+G will be evenly matched but the B will be less, yielding a yellowish tint. And on the opposite side from that region you'll have reduced R but matched G+B, yielding more of a cyan tint. (I've done a lot of work with LED lighting, building R,G,B arrays for other purposes...)

    Note that CCFLs also use much the same phosphorous technology, except their main exciter gives off UV light, which is then captured by phosphorous to emit white. As such, you should expect the color rendition quality of white-LED and CCFL to be just about the same.
     
  9. jke

    jke Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    51
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    True.

    The LED and CCFL difference here is just to draw a line between these two displays.

    The basic question is/was: is it worth the upgrade? I'd say: as long as HP uses such AUO or Samsung panels, the customer won't notice the difference except on the battery runtime maybe.

    I've seen the WXGA+ LED on a Lenovo T400 today which was slightly better. HP should really come up with a WXGA+ LED display for the 6930p as the rest of the notebook is great. How many ppl have switched from HP to a Dell E6400 or TP T400 just because of the display?
     
  10. MkFly

    MkFly Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    9
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    jke, did you ever succeed or attempt the swap as to have a 6930p with an LED WGXA+ display?

    I'm interested in the 6930p, but the display is the only thing I keep thinking about. I'm not worried so much about the colors or viewing angles, but about the longevity and "ruggedness" of CCFL's, as I want to keep this notebook for a long time.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page