ASUS N61Jv-X2: Optimus GT325M Meets Arrandale
by Jarred Walton on March 13, 2010 10:00 PM ESTASUS N61Jv-X2 LCD Quality
We ran our standard series of tests on the ASUS N61Jv-X2 16.0" LCD using ColorEyes Display Pro. The results, as we alluded to earlier, are quite poor. Contrast ratio is higher than many of the other laptops in our entry-level list, but the difference between 270:1 and 200:1 isn't all that great. What we'd really like to see is a contrast ratio of at least 500:1, as that usually means blacks and dark colors will look a lot better.
Interestingly enough, the panel in the N61Jv test unit comes from HannStar and is specced at a 600:1 contrast ratio. We're not sure how they managed to come up with that figure, but we didn't come anywhere near the rated contrast ratio. The maximum brightness on the other hand matches the rated 220nits value almost exactly. Perhaps HannStar "accidentally" divided the maximum white level by the 100nits black level… that would give the stated 600:1.
It's unfortunate that the LCD doesn't achieve the rated specs, as otherwise this would be an excellent display for the N61Jv. Color accuracy is by no means perfect, but it's at least competitive and we'd be happy with a 2.0 average Delta E as long as the contrast ratio was better. Color gamut is also higher than most laptops, measuring nearly 60%. Horizontal viewing angles are good, but vertical viewing angles are quite limited, just as with other TN panels. Of course, we'd also like to get an anti-glare (matte) display in place of the current mirror finish, and a panel that isn't TN would be great for improving vertical viewing angles, but one thing at a time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
It is about time you people at Anandtech implemented a black list for your comments section don't you think ?I know I am not the only one getting really *REALLY* bored with all the spam coming your way. Not to mention the ads you guys are seemingly letting in on your pages that peak CPU usage on modern PCs . . .
JarredWalton - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
I hear ya, and I'm probably one of the guys that deletes most of the posts. Thankfully we have an option to "delete all posts" by a user, but right now there's no quick way to ban a user as well. I'm hopeful we'll get that with the updated site in the next month or so.What I can't understand is the content of the spam we keep getting posted. Stupid fashion/clothing ads written in broken Engrish with no relation whatsoever to our content is a waste. Has *anyone* here actually clicked on any of the links? And yet they've created at least a dozen different accounts over the past few months, and they keep making new accounts.
Foggg - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
The advantages of the keyboard layout of the Asus over the Acer are:1) full size arrow keys, used far more than "0"
2) rt. Ctl key extends under the rt. Shift -- enabling selection by word or paragraph with just the right hand. Right index finger can hold down both, while other fingers hit the arrow keys. Great for editing.
IMO, the "0" key is pretty easy to adjust to, simply using the middle finger instead of the thumb.
JarredWalton - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
Having played with both, I find the Acer keyboard slightly more to my style. The smaller arrow keys don't bother me at all, as they're still big enough. Also, the smaller size helps set them apart from the other keys; notice how they're all in a perfect grid on the ASUS?For the CTRL+Shift, I almost always use my left hand for those keys, and I also use two fingers to hold down two keys. If I'm using CTRL and/or Shift + Arrow / End / PgUp / etc., all of the directional keys are on the right side so there's no way to comfortably hold CTRL+Shift+End with your right hand anyway (unless you have Gumby fingers).
I do understand that keyboards are a highly personal preference, so take my analysis with that in mind. It's not a huge difference, but I give Acer's layout the edge on this comparison.
fabarati - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
About your Criticism agains 5400 RPM Drives: the 500 GB 7200 RPM Seagate drives weren't all that fast, the first generation at least. The WD 500 GB 5400 RPM was generally as fast.yyrkoon - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
Any current 5400 RPM hard drive is going to be faster because of data density. A 7200 RPM drive with the same platter density will of course be faster. Name brand has little to do with that.teohhanhui - Sunday, March 14, 2010 - link
1366x768 at 16"? That immediately turned me away.utkal - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link
exactly...Its an another crap laptop with 1366x768 resolutionutkal - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link
EXACTLY !!!I do not understand why the hell Asus only hosts 1366x768 resolution lcds in their laptops. They have ONLY ONE laptop of full HD upto 16" screen size with a price of $1440 (approx) ! wtf ! In a 16" laptop what can be worst than this resolution lcd.
Sorry, but how AT reviewer said, we did not found anything bad about this laptop ? funny ! Do not you know the 1366x768 resolution makes the life hell if you use the laptop for work. Yes, if the laptop is bought ONLY TO GAME then its ok.
nortexoid - Monday, March 15, 2010 - link
Same