MacBook Pro backlight comparison: LED vs CCFL
By Ryan Block 
posted June 6th 2007 1:09PM
posted June 6th 2007 1:09PM
Yes, we're aware CCFL displays eventually wear down and lose their brightness, but either there really is a huge difference in CCFL and LED, or the 8-month old MBP we tested against in the photos had really worn down. Our suspicion is that it's a bit of both.
Standing in front of the white-LED backlight on the new MBP, it's immediately apparent how crisp the whites are -- it's very noticeable after staring into CCFL LCDs all day long. But even though the whites were whiter, the screen didn't necessarily seem a lot brighter, which is probably where some amount of CCFL dimming on our test MBP came into play in creating the dramatic difference we saw. Viewing angles were very similar on both machines, but as you'll notice, at half brightness it's the LED backlit MBP that's dimmer, and the CCFL display that's actually brighter. Interesting stuff.
Note: People, seriously, the commentary about the desktop contents on the CCFL test laptop is irrelevant. We borrowed the 2nd gen CCFL MacBook Pro it to do the test, ok? (Ours is a 1st gen MBP, which was a little older and would have surely skewed the results of the screen test.) Just so you can rest easy that we're not evil bad men pirating MPAA movies you can compare the serial numbers from our MBP with the MBPs tested in this post:
Did you get any pictures of the 17in 1920x1200 screens next to the old 1680x1050 ones?
The 17" MBPs haven't yet arrived at most (if any) stores.
Thats cool. But is there a battery life difference?
Well in theory there should be an energy saving because LEDs use less power than traditional cathode lights for the same brightness, right?
Something that you might take into consideration is the color profile for both MBPs. Ive got dual 20" cinema displays, and they looked quite different side by side until i used a color profile tool.
Maybe the difference would be imperceptible if the new MBP wasn't so green-heavy.
Undead is right. Without profiling the monitor, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Especially since the graphics card in the MBP has been updated as well, there's no way to see what side-by-side image quality looks like without a good custom profile on each of them.
As I said, it was wholly unscientific. This was as good a test as we're gonna get in an Apple store -- we don't have a review unit on the new MBP yet.
I too would like to know if the battery life is better. I would think that LED would be more efficient or brighter, but I could be wrong.
Why has nobody included a blurb about batt life in any of the articles about this new LED backlight.
???
I saw something on the Apple site saying LED would give 1/2 to 1 hour of extra battery life
The 15" LED MacBook Pros extends battery life 30-60 minutes when compared to the older MacBook Pros. This includes battery savings from the LED itself as well as the new Santa Rosa chipset.
oh absolutely. I was just helping out my fellow engadget reader!
Hmm, on some pics the right screen is very bright and on some it seems like they've changed place so the left one is the brightest?! The topic says LED Vs CCFL and therefore it should be LED to the left. But the text says it's the other way..
So, is it LED to the left on every picture??
Hmmm, lots of axo dvd rips on the desktop on the "old" model. Might want to clean those up before you have CIA or something at your door.
Loved the pic comparisons!
Well if it's only 'slightly' brighter, then maybe it's not worth upgrading or anything. Sigh. Another disappointing post. No point in getting a new MBP if this is all they got.
Sadly, it seems that if every Apple upgrade, is just a bunch of minor ones.
If the CCFL is always on the LEFT, what is up with the 50% brightness? Do you loose that much of the LED at 50%? Is it part of the power saving?
Someone take a light meter and measure what 50% means.... maybe in LED 50% is really 50%..... or visa versa
Dimming with CCFL has always been somewhat hokey, particularly on notebooks. My iPAQs have always had a really good range between max and min brightness, with minimum being barely there, but practically all notebooks I've ever seen barely dim the backlight at all even at the min setting. My old Toshiba, Samsung, Dell and the current Averatec all are not much dimmer on the min versus the max setting. I would expect the LCD backlight to have much more range there.
It's probably due to the voltage characteristics of an LED, actually. At 50% voltage the current flowing through a diode is a lot less than 50% of the current at 100% voltage, and my guess is that CCFL is more linear, meaning that at "50% brightness" the LED display would be dimmer.
the LEd one looks faded, not a true color as the lcd one.
the led one seems brighter but not a good color contrast as the old screen.
it's still an apple :(
Purely aesthetically speaking I am happy they reduced that uneven bezel at the top of the screen. It's more uniform now and if you're OCD like me it makes a difference.
No offense to who ever took these images, but i think running the levels on the photos to bring out the true colors would help a lot in making a proper comparison.
What a misleading gallery. I assume the CCFL is on the left for all the pics cuz it's clearly showing 2.15ghz in the system profiler... but at the top it says "LED vs CCFL" which would imply it's the other way around. Furthermore, with one exception, the CCFL screen seemed brighter in every pic...
That axxo movies was the first thing that caught my eye. Tisk Tisk Tisk.
It would be useful to show a comparison on how well these backlit displays can show a color image.
Assuming that the Apple cables in the background are pure white (which may or may not be 100% correct), here's what Levels in PS came up with:
http://www.pbase.com/ac773/image/80086862
Looks a bit wonky, sure, but it did remove that yellowish color cast pretty well.
Awesome movie pirating!
is it me or does the gray on the led screen look like pissed yellow? the screen do is more brighter...
Ryan,
Unscientific as your comparison may admittedly have been, you might have at least told us if you set the brightness for the same levels relative to their minimum and maximum settings. That takes 10 seconds each to check (F1 and F2 function keys). It's an additional 2 minutes per machine (Apple Menu > System Preferences > Displays > Color > Calibrate...) to make sure they have comparable color calibrations. I've read that the LED display illuminates quicker -- that would have taken very little time to check as well (close lid, open lid; or put to sleep, wake from sleep).
Your observations have basically shown us that both displays light up, which I suppose is heartening to know but not especially informative. Otherwise, without knowing whether or not you had done the simple, unscientific checks I just mentioned, your nice photos are pretty much -- from this zombie's point of view -- meaningless.
Both were set to default calibration.
I'm just waiting for my quad core, SSD based MBP to come out before I buy one.
Thank you everyone who help answer my brightness problem. I thought I had a ghost next to my bed. :)
there is text provided at the bottom of most of the images explaining the shot.
Yup nice collection of pirated movies on the old mac there. Didn't they ban a user a while ago for saying that Engadget encouraged piracy?
As to the screens I'd definately say LED backlighting is the way forward. Less power consumption, cleaner lighting and less dimming over time.
aXXo Rules!
Hey guys, the LED being darker at 50% is a good thing. One thing LED backlighting lets you do is go much darker than CCFL before it conks out entirely. So the LED can go as bright as CCFL but it can also go much darker, so the 50% mark would be much darker as well.
they took the pic off :rofl:
The LED backlight can either go darker and/or the linearity is different. I agree this wasn't a very good test.
Damn dude! Ghost Rider isn't even out yet! How did you get that rip?
I don't remember seeing it anywhere in all of the announcements for the new 15" LED MBP's, but the LED MBP's case sure looks to be a little smaller (less space between the top edge of the screen and the edge of the case). That is unless the CCFL and LED aren't well lined up in those pics.
I've seen the LED in person, and it's noticeably brighter and more impressive
I don't see a major difference, looks like my Dell 1501 screen on full on the right and 1 setting down on the left :/
I think GhostRider is out in Canada on DVD ;-)
Phil: the cables are magsafe power cables, thus they would be a slight grey; however, the magnetic connector itself is white, so you can base it off of that.
They are different. I like the LED better - it is brighter and fresher. Colors on either CCRT or LED laptop screens are terrible. One needs a "hot" cathode ray tube (a TV style monitor)
Agree with Undead et al. It's a nice effort on Engadget's part, but useless due to lack of calibration. The two units are clearly set to different color points, and any comparison will be flawed until you can get them matched up.
Ugliest Screen Ever. Only for Mac FunBoys. Apple is becomming only a "snobs griffe"', or a bad religion like Scientology...
I`d prefer a Alienware...
Huh? How are screens ugly?
I bought the new MBP yesterday. The screen looks great. I have experienced a little problem and I haven't had a chance to call Apple yet. I adjust the brigtness to very low at night. The computer automatically turned the brightness higher without someone touch the F2 key right in front of my eyes. It happed 5 or 6 times last night.
The other problem with the new MBP is that some of the current Bootcamp drivers don't work. My Isight Cam, LAN NIC, Apple keyboard and some other drivers won't load under Windows Vista. The wireless drive does work.