[Pathogen-David]

> Many Laptop screens are in fact 6-bit panels performing dithering to fake an 8-bit output. This includes even high-priced workstations replacements, like the HP Zbook Fury 15 G7 and its 6-bit LCD panel, that I sit in front of right now.

This made me double-check the date of the article (it's from 2023.)

The author's laptop appears to have launched in 2020. I'm astounded any manufacturer would think this is even remotely acceptable this day and age, much less on such a high-end device. (Going off the current generation, these laptops start around $3k.)

Is this actually that common or did the author just get unlucky?

[dspillett]

It is surprisingly common even on desktop monitors, though not high-end ones.

The panel is something that will often get changed over time in given laptop model without any visible change in the model number etc. and there have been cases of early versions (including review models, of course) having better panels and later revisions having 6-bit ones. I'd be really irritated if it happened in a high-end model but I'd not be surprised to discover there are examples where it has.

[matheusmoreira]

> there have been cases of early versions (including review models, of course) having better panels and later revisions having 6-bit ones

How is this not fraud?

[dspillett]

They are very careful not to state parts of the panel spec that they don't absolutely have to, then they can legally (though obviously not morally) change the unstated parts without any issue. With early review units there are other extra excuses available to them.

It is rare that a screen will get such a significant downgrade, though it has happened. More common is downgrades in RAM and drive performance. Drive makers themselves play fast and lose with this sort of trick, sometimes changing both controllers and memory to the detriment of performance multiple times without outward change in product codes.

[jeffbee]

The "panel lottery" is still a thing, especially from the major brands like HP, Lenovo, and Dell. They don't say what you are going to get, they change panel suppliers without changing the model number, and in general they don't give a damn about how the thing looks. I guess it's why people buy Apple.

[vladvasiliu]

I don't know about Lenovo and Dell, but for HP, they do say what you're getting.

I'm not familiar with the Z Book line, but for the Elite and Pro Book (which we have at work - it's why I know) they give some specs. Usually, they quote NTSC coverage and backlight intensity. Now, they never say it's great, mind.

I have a top-of-the-line EliteBook screen and while it's very bright, colors aren't great and viewing angles are a bad joke. But that's likely related to the "privacy screen" feature.

One of its cousins has a lower-end screen, which is 6-bit. Its angles are fine, but it's basically unable to display real reds.

The first one was quoted as something like 72% NTSC. I forget what the other one was, but certainly below 50%.

And, indeed, these laptops are not cheap. My 14" EliteBook cost a few hundred euros less than a 14" M1 MBP with the same quantity RAM and SSD (32 / 512). Now I haven't seen the new MBP screens, but my 2013 MBP's screen runs circles around these pieces of crap. Also, battery life is comparable to my 2013 MBP, but the SSD is slower.

[cma]

Apple at least used to often use multiple suppliers, I remember people saying one was better than the other, maybe somewhere back in the first few generations of laptops with retina displays.

[clysm]

Yes, on the first gen of retina display, LG panels were prone to image retention, while the Samsung's were not.