Manufacturer Info: AU Optronics - 9C8C / LG Philips - 9C89 (Just the Facts)

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by radiohead14, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. radiohead14 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #1
    First off, I should state that I've owned the new MacBook since the release date, that I have the 9C8C panel (but this is actually my 3rd replacement.. thanks to Apple's QC), that I also own a previous gen MBP w/ LED display, and that I've been following these threads for a while now.. Having said that... With all the talk about which panel is better, I was surprised to see that no one has gone straight to the main resources for the facts to compare (and if someone has done this research previously, then I apologize). By looking at the specs below, you could see that the 9C8C panel has the slightly higher contrast ratio, is slightly brighter, weighs a bit less, and has the slightly better viewing angle.

    AUO (9C8C) Display:
    http://auo.com/auoDEV/products.php?func=info&product_id=136&items_id=2

    Model: B133EW02 V0
    Resolution (pixel): WXGA (1280 x 800)
    Aspect Ratio: 16:10
    Active Area (mm): 286.08 x 178.8
    Pixel Pitch (mm): 0.2235
    Mode: TN
    Number of Colors: 262K
    Color Saturation (NTSC %): 45
    View Angle (H/V): 140/120
    Brightness (cd/m²) (5 points average): 300
    Contrast Ratio: 800:1
    Response Time (ms) (at 25°C): 16
    Power Consumption (W)(typ): 4.1
    Interface: 1ch LVDS
    Supply Voltage (V): 3.3
    Backlight: LED
    Outline Dimensions (mm)(typ): 296 x 202.3 x 2.7
    Weight (g)(typ): 225

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LG Philips (9C89) Display:
    http://www.lgdisplay.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd301_j_e.jsp

    Model Name: LP133WX2
    Active Area [mm]: 286.1 x 178.8
    Outline Dimension [mm]: 297.1 x 192.2
    Thickness [mm]: 3.5
    Resolution: 1280 x RGB X 800
    Aspect Ratio: 16:10
    Pixel Pitch [mm]: 0.2235(114)
    Number of Colors: 262,144(6bit)
    Luminance [cd/㎡]: 275
    Color Saturation (%): 45
    Weight [g]: 270
    Contrast Ratio: 400:1
    Interface: LVDS 1port
    Viewing Angle [˚,U/D/L/R]: 50/90
    Color Temperature [K]: N/A
    Response Time [ms]: 16


    I hope this finally clears up the mystery as to why some people believe that the 9C8C is a slightly better panel.

    EDIT: Please feel free to argue these numbers, but please do so by providing actual information as well. Thanks!
    :cheers: :)
     
  2. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #2
    Unfortunately specifications given by manufacturers aren't always accurate.

    Here are 2 different panels in the new Macbook measured by Notebookcheck.net. They have not said which panel it is but I have reasons to believe the first one is 9C8C. Your data (^) seems to confirm this.

    9C8C:
    Maximum brightness 318 cd/m²
    Average 283.7 cd/m²
    Black 1.67 cd/m²
    Contrast 190:1
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Aluminium-Unibody-13-9400M.11984.0.html

    9C89:
    Maximum brightness 298 cd/m²
    Average 246.1 cd/m²
    Black 1.92 cd/m²
    Contrast 155:1
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Update-Apple-MacBook-Aluminium-Unibody-13-9400M.12533.0.html

    For comparison here's a Macbook Air:
    Maximum brightness 354 cd/m²
    Average 308 cd/m²
    Black 0.49 cd/m²
    Contrast 722:1
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Air-Subnotebook.7979.0.html
     
  3. netddos macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    #3
    not really...

    there is no single standard that manufactures use to churn out these numbers..

    only accurate way to measure is to use aftermarket calibrators...


    let's just say they are correct.. 400:1 vs 800:1...there is 2 fold difference here...there is no way that's the case...i've personally seen both but there is just no way the difference is that great..

    edit: philflow you beat me to it :D
     
  4. mcewanmac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    #4
    Get A Grip!

    THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFIRMATION WHICH IS WHICH AND WHAT SCREEN APPLE USE. IT IS ALL SPECULATION, GOSSIP AND A LOAD OF TOSS.

    Get on with your life. You have a Macbook.
     
  5. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #5
    It's very easy to verify using PC Wizard 2008 in Bootcamp. I did it myself.

    The 9C89 is LG Philips LP133WX2-TLC1. The 8C9C is an AUOptronics panel.

    These facts are confirmed by the guy who is opening up his Macbook to replace the screen with a MBA screen:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=590159
     
  6. Gene Parmesan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #6
    As a satisfied 9c89 customer, I'd hate to fuel other people's obsessions but for the love of maths:

    AUO View Angle (H/V): 140/120
    LG Viewing Angle [˚,U/D/L/R]: 50/90

    They measure viewing angles differently.
    AUO measures the 'total' viewable angle (from ear to ear) whereas LG only measures the angle starting from looking at the screen dead-on i.e. 90 degrees from the screens surface.

    That would mean that you have to divide the AUO figures by 2 in order to get the LG standard equivalent (and reverse their order since H = L/R and V = U/D):
    AUO Viewing Angle [˚,U/D/L/R]: 60/70
     
  7. 8theapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    North
    #7
    To the OP, would you have started this thread if you had the 98C9 screen lol.

    The specs are just approximations. There is NO PHYSICAL WAY the 9C8C panel has contrast ratio of two fold that of the 9C89 screen panel. The sheer difference would be visible to the naked eye. If you walked into the Apple store you'd be able to see differences in the screens immediately. I think the screens are more or less very comparable in specs.
     
  8. coolquasar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    #8
    Do u think the Number of Colors is 262K :eek: for a Laptop screen??

    Even the Nokia mobile phones are havin 16Million colors screen, :apple: iPhone is also havin a 16M screen...So i guess theres no possilbity that the no. of colors for a macbook screen wud jus be 262K....

    In my experience, a 16M screen is far brilliant than a 262K one...

    If u compare the screens of any latest Nokia n sony ericson mobiles, u can observe that the difference is evident...

    Most of the SE mobiles are with 262k screen :D ....
     
  9. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #9
    They simply don't...

    Not even the MBP have a 16M screen, it still has a 6-bit screen= 262K.
    Only really highend stuff has true 8-bit screens, even tho they are advertising for showing 16M colors..
    The only screens apple sells with true 8-bit are the cinema displays.
     
  10. me2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    #10
    Seriously... I don't get why people hate these screens.

    I have the 9c89 and I think the screen is great. The viewing angles are better than my Dell and the screen just looks brighter.

    I just don't get it..

    People, don't let a few people make you hate your new machine. If it looks fine to you, then let it be. :)
     
  11. radiohead14 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #11
    First off... there's no need to type in all caps.. Second, you can easily verify what panel you have, as others have pointed out before me. And third.. I never said anything about my opinions regarding the notebook. I wanted to keep this strictly just facts.. But since you seem to imply that just because I wanted to give an input, that I'm whining about it. That is certainly not the case. This thread was started in hopes of finally giving the issue of how come some people conceive the 9C8C panel being slightly different a rest.

    Actually, yes I would have, considering that my first 2 MacBooks that I had to exchange due to various QC issues, both had the 9C89 panel. And while I did not think that it was unusable or much worse.. I did notice that there is a small difference that I'm sure others would find negligible, and that is all I'm trying to say here.. Some people were saying that the 9C8C panel was slightly better, but did not back up their claim with actual numbers, so I went to the actual specs to see what that difference was.

    Gene, thanks for that info.. and I'm not discrediting your post at all, so please don't take this the wrong way.. but could you please further explain or link your resource for this? I'd like to keep this thread strictly facts. Thanks!

    And I agree with me2000 above.. if you like your MacBook and the screen looks fine to you.. then be happy with what you have. I think the best way for that is to not read threads like these.
     
  12. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  13. radiohead14 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #13
    throw in some wings on that plate and you have a more valid fact.
     
  14. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    Throw in some french fries with honey mustard on the plate and you have an even more valid fact.

    PS - I have the 9C89 screen and I love it. Way better than my HP 1660se screen.
     
  15. 8theapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    North
  16. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
  17. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #17
    you can have the wings. I'll keep the ribs... they have a slightly higher contrast ratio. there's no arguing that.
     
  18. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
    #18
    I will stick well seasoned and properly smoked country style ribs up against your wings any day, sir!
     
  19. radiohead14 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #19
    depends on the manufacturer of the sauce and the angle you view both
     
  20. applestew macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #20
    No wonder!!! I have the 9C8C screen. Now I know why some people whine... Mine looks very good to me... and I have a 1st Gen MBA for comparison. Granted it is not the same screen as the MBA, but I think it is very close in terms of quality. Pop in some of the custom color profiles and you are done!
     
  21. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
    #21
    Yeah, yeah, sure. Now about the angle of the sauce...
     
  22. Gene Parmesan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #22
    It's logical reasoning, if you look at what they have stated on their websites.
    I'm not too good with the technical jargon but I'll give explaining a shot.

    Now, to cut down on typing, I'm just gonna look at the Horizontal aspect of the screen.

    AUO:
    View Angle (H/V): 140/120
    H = Horizontal; V = Vertical
    140 Horizontal is an obtuse angle. This is the total horizontal viewer-friendly area. i.e. if you stare at your screen dead-on you will be able walk up to 70 degrees (from your dead-on starting point) to the left or right and be able to read the screen. If you go past that point (walk further than 70 degrees to the left or right) you should notice that it becomes more difficult to discern what is on the screen. Why 70? well this is because you're starting staring at the screen dead-on. You could add the 70 to the left, and 70 to the right and you get the total horizontal viewer-friendly area = 140.

    Now for the LG:
    Viewing Angle [˚,U/D/L/R]: 50/90
    U/D = Up/Down (aka vertically); L/R = Left/Right (aka horizintally)
    If you look at the L/R (horizontal) "90" is not the total viewer-friendly area. It means you can pretty much walk to the extreme left or right of the screen, and still be able to read what's on it. I have a 9c89 and I can read the screen at the far right or far left.

    You have a 9c8c, if you move your head to the far right, are you still able to make out what's on it?
     
  23. radiohead14 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    nyc
    #23
    ah.. yea that makes sense. so in a way, the 9C8C is only about 10 degrees more in terms of vertical viewing angle? or say 5 degrees extra down and 5 up? but 20 degrees less than 9C89 from left to right (or 10 both sides). the horizontals are fine for me actually. i can still read your last post from looking at far left and right. like many have said before.. it's the verticals that aren't very good on both panels. the negative effect it gives, and the wash out of the blacks when the panel is slightly tilted back, are the concerns.
     
  24. Gene Parmesan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    #24
    5 degress better in terms of up and down, correct (5 more on the top and 5 more on the bottom view). But only 10 degrees less than 9c89 (10 less on the left, 10 less on the right).

    As pointed out by Philflow, the specs that manufacturers sometimes reflect their own methods and standards for measuring. So who knows what else is a bit off on both manufacturers' websites.

    I'm not experiencing any wash-out, but that might be due to the fact that I upgraded from a 5-year old Dell laptop to a spanking new MacBook. Couldn't be happier - well - unless it came with a personal typist who know's how to brew coffee (You hear that Mr. Jobs?) :)
     
  25. DeekinBlooz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #25
    I agree - hate is a bit extreme IMHO. The display griping has delayed my purchase, much to my wife's delight. However, I went into an Apple Store last night and compared a 9c89 display to a 9c8c display and the latter was noticeably superior. The BlueShirts were hassling me ("Oh, you are looking at MacRumors. What lies are they spouting now?"), but then when one of them brought up a high contrast photo on both machines, the one hassling me at the time had to admit that there was as significant difference between the two. Both were decent displays, but I'd much rather have the display that gave me the high contrast, well-saturated beach scene that the 9c8c presented. (I probably would have noticed even if they were not side by side.)

    Still, I haven't seen any of the gradient issues that others have discussed. I'll probably pull the trigger on a new MacBook and hope to get at least the 9c8c display.
     

Share This Page