Quotefhd@120Hz panels have always been the worst choice

Fair. I do seem to remember this being common in some ASUS models shortly after (or even during?) this period.

It must have been 144Hz only, unless you count the 120Hz Chi-Mei TN panels that had improved (but still TN) viewing angles and 94% NTSC, which were used predominantly by MSI.

Quote from: Ednumero on March 29, 2024, 21:28:30There was a brief moment in time when 120Hz+ panels were majority ~sRGB

fhd@120Hz panels have always been the worst choice, because it was in them that most often there was a terrible colorspace of 45-46% sRGB. And now even among 144Hz fhd, almost everyone is like that. Because now marketers have decided that fhd is for the poor, and 2.5k is for the "middle class," and 4k is still for the rich.

Although in fact, only 4K screens should be in all laptop models, without exception, with the minimum possible 100% sRGB.

Nice that it's 16:10, but I agree it's a shame that the sRGB suffers.

There was a brief moment in time when 120Hz+ panels were majority ~sRGB, to the point that it became a somewhat reliable indicator when purchasing. It would be cool to see that emerge again in this 16:10 renaissance, so to speak.

Quote from: LL on March 29, 2024, 08:07:22Who still buys a no sRGB screen?!

I read that out of 10 men, 2 are colorblind and 1 woman out of 10. But judging by the sales of this garbage (not just Gigabyte), everything is exactly the opposite - 8 men are colorblind and 9 women out of 10...

Because I don't understand how you can sell this garbage against the backdrop of good smartphone screens that are in the pockets of the majority of the world's population. Even cheap smartphone models have long had color reproduction above 90% sRGB. How can you look at the screen of your smartphone at exactly the same photo (for example, roses) and buy this garbage? People are strange creatures. They are interested in color rendering on a 6" screen, but not on a 14"+ screen...

Who still buys a no sRGB screen?!