Is not one of the added features of Displayport that the GPU can send the video signal directly to the planel without a TMDS or LVDS? So basicaly a GPU can send a 10bit signal straight to the panel. This will be needed for future displays to render colors properly and is not possible over dvi because of bandwidth and other issues, Also it can be used as a internal connection in laptops so the GPU can address a Lcd panel directly without the need for scalers or transmiters. So from a overall cost perspective it is easier to implement in hardware as apposed to HDMI
So I'm sitting in front of my 4 year old giant 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB (which has the best image quality I have seen on anything) wondering when someone is going to come out with an LCD that will beat it.
Its got to depend on what you mean by 'image quality'. If you are a colour fidelity obsesive then I believe that the best old CRTs are still where its at but LCDs are getting there. If you want picture sharpness then LCDs are worth having - the winner by a mile in this category is the now obsolete(!) 22" IBM T221 with 200DPI. Response times are now mostly sorted on LCDs but latency can be an issue.
You pays your money and you makes your choice, but if your old CRT works for you then keep it. I have a Sony F500 at home that I still rate as one of the worlds great monitors.
Really do not like S IPS panels as much as S PVA's. Some aspects of the IPS are nice, but really prefer the contrast and color on the PVA's better.
Wish Dell would offer both, 1 based on each panel and just let the market decide which they'd prefer. As it is, I don't want the large pixel pitch of the 27" (PVA based) so I'm forced to step down to the 24's or else go with a Sammy whenever it's displayport model gets here.
Well you'd be wrong, as S-IPS is superior in just about every way to *VA panels (MVA/PVA). Sadly they also cost more to manufacture, which is why they cost more and are more rare to find these days when most manufacturers are trying to get the most profit with the bare minimum hardware (Dell is especially guilty of this practice and we see it everytime they release a new display that has ridiculous 'bugs'.
There is usually negligible input lag on S-IPS panels, unlike the horrid, often frustrating input lag that can ruin FPS gaming for folks used to using a S-IPS panel where they see their mouse input on screen essentially instantaneously not delayed by tens of milliseconds (it's basically like having lag between your mouse and display, which is nuts). S-IPS panels also generally has better color saturation, better blacks, and a wider viewable angle without color distortion.
This is why the 2405/7 series Dell monitors were never appealing to me and why my first-run 2007WFP is perfect (aside from some gradient issues care of Dell's cost-cutting bottom-bin hardware selection). YES, once you get above around 24" there is more likely to be input lag due to the hardware scaler and size of the panel, which is exactly why if I ever got a larger monitor it would be the 3007WFP (or another brand that offers a low-latency, low-input lag S-IPS display panel, like NEC). Input lag is a deal breaker for me, even though I don't game as much as I used to. It's still important enough that I would settle for a slightly smaller display without it over a larger display that exhibits it.
And YES, all displays have SOME level of input lag. That's just the nature of how things work. But there's a HUGE difference between normal unnoticeable input lag and what is experienced on displays like the 2407 and apparently the new 3008 as well.
I've seen S IPS and S PVA side by side and I'd very much disagree on the contrast and color. PVA is far better, and noticeable if you compare them.
As for them having input lag, that I can agree with, they do, but I don't agree that S IPS is superior every time. It too, depending on the scaler chips used, can have severe input lag. Moreover, input lag varies depending on the source and the power (gpu power in the case of pc's) of the source, so sadly cross comparing various sites measurements isn't consistent. So there is a lot more to the story than purely the monitor itself. But it definitely exists. Taking the scalers out of the picture probably made the first generation 30's much more palatable to the gaming crowd.
All I indicated would be nice was a choice, pva and ips in a 30" size from Dell, keeping the best (fastest) scaling chips possible the same between the two and let the consumer decide which format they prefer. And I do realize that various folks have preferences for sure. :)
I'm beginning to think that S-PVA may somehow account for the input lag. It sounds ludicrous, but I have results from seven 24" LCDs right now, and only two don't show significant input lag. The five that show 1 to 3 frames lag are all S-PVA panels (most likely Samsung); the two that don't are TN panels. I've got two more LCDs for the 24" roundup to test (one of which hasn't arrived yet), but so far the evidence is pretty strong. The reference panel, incidentally, is an HP LP3065, which is an S-IPS panel. The two TN panels match it in terms of input lag (sorry - I no longer stock CRTs).
Correct, TN and S-IPS have the least input lag at a given panel size and PVA/MVA have the most. This has been established on several display panel review sites, so your theory is indeed correct. However one must take note that the larger the panel the more input lag will accompany it, even on S-IPS displays. There -are- S-IPS displays out there that exhibit noticeable input lag (though still generally much better than an equivalent PVA panel).
You are referring to overdrive ghosting?
I have a 2407-HC, and I haven't noticed it even once in regular use. Maybe I'll see it only with a specially designed test just for that purpose.
Granted, I switched from an old 19" Samsung where response time ghosting was easily noticeable, and I used it so much I got used to it to the point of not minding it in 95% of cases. I also have poor eyesight and wear glasses.
Regardless, the 2407-HC works great for me.
And they do not ignore the problem, like you say. I read that it is fixed in the 2408 - but now they seem to have a problem with input lag and poorer colors. You can't have everything perfect, I guess.
Down with DisplayPort! I'll never ever buy a displayport gpu, and if I buy a monitor with it it will certainly also have HDMI or DVI.
I would hate if this standard becomes popular, there is absolutely no reason for it to exist.
Right now I am wondering, would FullHD movies upscaled on a 2560x1600 resolution display look better or worse than on a native 1920x1080 display? It not being an exact multiple, I'm having doubts about how good an upscaler could be... it's like resizing a 32x32 icon to 42x42.
I've been running a Dell 2408WFP and a Palit 9600GT using DisplayPort for about a month now... been pretty happy with it so far. Seems like an improvement over DVI. I had a dead pixel after only a couple weeks on the 2408 though... which makes me a sad panda. :( Only noticable on a completely black screen though.
How is it an improvement over DVI in your case? From what I understand, you don't use neither audio over that cable, not a resolution that's too high for DVI, nor anything else that DVI lacks. Are you referring simply to the sleeker ports?
And then, even if you did need anything that DVI lacks, HDMI already provides it.
DisplayPort is totally redundant... for now. Soon this will change - it will become actually limiting. Right now your video card has DVI and HDMI outputs besides the newfangled DisplayPort, so you can use it to connect to TVs and other CE products. But if it gets more popular, we might lose that flexibility.
That is the real purpose of those pushing this new standard - separation between the PC and CE markets. And that's what I really hate about DisplayPort.
Ever had an HDMI cable go bad and reject your output screen? If you've ever faced that, then you know HDMI is horribly picky, and incredibly expensive to repair or replace.
IMO, that alone makes Displayport a better choice.
- Most DisplayPort products will also have a HDMI input as well, so they will be paying the full HDMI licenses regardless.
- If there eventually are DisplayPort-only products, I myself wouldn't buy them, regardless of the savings offered. I like the convenience of being able to use my monitor with consumer-electronic sources and will pay for it.
- To support HDCP, which is absolutely a necessity, DisplayPort will still have the HDCP licenses, can't avoid that.
- I've not seen a quote about how much the HDMI licenses rises the price of the final products, until then I am not convinced. I mean it is totally not worth it if it's just to save ten bucks.
The last point is perhaps the most important... if the only reason to push DisplayPort on us really is lower price, then they should actually let us know by how much lower it can be. Give us the numbers. Until they do, I just see no reason for DisplayPort.
You mean, besides potentially technological benefits? Honestly, DisplayPort at present is a non-entity, at least in terms of GPUs. There are only a few devices that support it. Now, given the number of HDMI cards and displays, DP has a tough row to hoe; but it may still be the better standard. For one, it has bandwidth already equal to HDMI 1.3, which few are supporting. Second, the packetized data transport may result in future bandwidth scaling.
As an example of some of the issues I would like to avoid, I recently connected a Gateway laptop to a Samsung 24" LCD via HDMI. Guess what didn't work? The resolution you would expect: 1920x1200@60 Hz. For whatever reason, the display with HDMI maxed out at 1920x1080@30 Hz. Yuck! I'm not sure if the problem was in the Samsung LCD or in the Gateway laptop, but I do know that if I use a digital interface - DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort - I had damn well BETTER get the native display resolution.
Oh, and would it be too much to ask for LCDs to identify - and include support for - all the expected widescreen resolutions? 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD is a given, naturally, but I still seem to encounter 24" LCDs that don't immediately inform the PC that they also work with 1680x1050, 1440x900, and 1280x800... and in at least one case I discovered that 1280x800 didn't work right. Dell got this right for sure on the 2407WFP, and I think it was correct with the 2405FPW. Why on earth do I see newer displays (Samsung 245T) that don't always work properly at other 16:10 resolutions!?
/rant
I'm not ready to call DisplayPort good, bad, evil, or anything really. It may end up in the BetaMax camp, though.
Hey, I appreciate all the troubles you're going through and I whole-heartedly agree with you - I'm all for better quality products.
But nothing from your rant really has to do with DisplayPort vs HDMI. Nothing shows me what "technological benefits" it has.
So far they are equally good, and despite what hype buzzwords like "packetized data transport" may make you believe, they both can improve the same too.
So then, why do we need both? Why even come up with DisplayPort, when we already had HDMI? Why try to separate the PC and the CE markets?
I'm not saying that DisplayPort is a bad standard - just that it is no better than what we already have, and so is not needed. And I fear that the reason it is being pushed on us by the tech companies may be bad.
First we need to see where the CE camp heads. If HDMI continues to ship with the old 1.2 standard where the maximum resolution is essentially 1080p, we need a standard that will accommodate future resolutions (and current resolutions) that are much higher than that. How many HDMI 1.3 products are on the market - any?
HDMI can be extended - just as the 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 versions indicate. The question is, can DisplayPort extend the standard without requiring new hardware? The packetized data in theory allows you improve without new hardware. I'll believe it when I see it.
You're basically coming out on the conspiracy theory side of things, and I don't see that. I would think if there was a conspiracy, it would be to keep users locked into something like HDMI rather than letting newer, better technologies evolve. DP may or may not be such a technology, but I don't think the purpose of DP is to segment the market into CE and PC devices.
How many TVs with a resolution above 1080p are on the market?
Why would you want higher res input if it can't be displayed? Just to get scaled down? That's quite useless, especially considering that pretty much the only source of such signal can be a PC, which is perfectly capable of scaling the output down itself.
And how do you expect HDMI/DP to be extended "without requiring new hardware"? The same thing again, your 2560x1600 display to start accepting 5120x3200 signal and scale it down? I don't see a reason to want this at all, and even less a chance of it happening, with either standard.
OK, I'll not talk to you about conspiracies any more - but the fact remains, that DP is just another alternative of what we already have... with no advantages that I can see yet. Another useless "format war".
#2. The Gateway being the only one with a scaler I tested, also had horrendous input lag, rendering games like Guitar Hero unplayable.
#3. Enthusiast speculation on the 3008's issues would lead me to hope the fix concerns the 2 greatest problems with the monitor
A. it's pretty bad backlight bleed on monitors delivered to customers thus far.
B. the also horrendous input lag introduced with the inclusion of a scaler. Apparently it doesn't matter what resolution you're playing at, or with what input (say, 2560x1600 using dvi from your GPU) you'll have nasty lag.
Personally I find this an unacceptable downgrade from their previous 30" models, and I'll be holding onto my WFP 3007-HC until I can upgrade to something that's not significantly worse in a given area.
I have a 3008 for my graphic design work and the colour is really great. I've read reviews saying otherwise, but have always found these morons have not configured the display beforehand. They have just dumped it on some pre-set.
It's really disappointing because the colours are top quality. Anyone who reviews before configuring it is a complete retard, and should not be reviewing monitors in the first place.
the realita and reon (gateways uses the top of the line realita) take 6 seconds to work on the signal once it gets going. remember these scalers work on the image pixel by pixel. they also store some image history in them. normally this isnt a problem for televisions
What I have heard and read in reviews is that the colors are abysmal and uniformity bad and there is backbleeding too. Some smaller Dells and the 3007 seems to be much better implemented.
Anyone heard anything about the new Samsung 305T that should be available this quarter?
You should review the Daewoo 30" the sells for 900 Euro. it has an S-IPS panel and is very minimalistic when it comes to functions and anything but it is a dirt cheap 30". Might be good for those who don't need professional quality.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
Back to Article
undermined - Sunday, May 4, 2008 - link
Is not one of the added features of Displayport that the GPU can send the video signal directly to the planel without a TMDS or LVDS? So basicaly a GPU can send a 10bit signal straight to the panel. This will be needed for future displays to render colors properly and is not possible over dvi because of bandwidth and other issues, Also it can be used as a internal connection in laptops so the GPU can address a Lcd panel directly without the need for scalers or transmiters. So from a overall cost perspective it is easier to implement in hardware as apposed to HDMIBubbaJoe TBoneMalone - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a...">http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod...mp;dgc=S...Rasterman - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
So I'm sitting in front of my 4 year old giant 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB (which has the best image quality I have seen on anything) wondering when someone is going to come out with an LCD that will beat it.What is the 20"-30" LCD with best image quality?
jc44 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
Its got to depend on what you mean by 'image quality'. If you are a colour fidelity obsesive then I believe that the best old CRTs are still where its at but LCDs are getting there. If you want picture sharpness then LCDs are worth having - the winner by a mile in this category is the now obsolete(!) 22" IBM T221 with 200DPI. Response times are now mostly sorted on LCDs but latency can be an issue.You pays your money and you makes your choice, but if your old CRT works for you then keep it. I have a Sony F500 at home that I still rate as one of the worlds great monitors.
FXi - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
Really do not like S IPS panels as much as S PVA's. Some aspects of the IPS are nice, but really prefer the contrast and color on the PVA's better.Wish Dell would offer both, 1 based on each panel and just let the market decide which they'd prefer. As it is, I don't want the large pixel pitch of the 27" (PVA based) so I'm forced to step down to the 24's or else go with a Sammy whenever it's displayport model gets here.
/sigh
yacoub - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
Well you'd be wrong, as S-IPS is superior in just about every way to *VA panels (MVA/PVA). Sadly they also cost more to manufacture, which is why they cost more and are more rare to find these days when most manufacturers are trying to get the most profit with the bare minimum hardware (Dell is especially guilty of this practice and we see it everytime they release a new display that has ridiculous 'bugs'.There is usually negligible input lag on S-IPS panels, unlike the horrid, often frustrating input lag that can ruin FPS gaming for folks used to using a S-IPS panel where they see their mouse input on screen essentially instantaneously not delayed by tens of milliseconds (it's basically like having lag between your mouse and display, which is nuts). S-IPS panels also generally has better color saturation, better blacks, and a wider viewable angle without color distortion.
This is why the 2405/7 series Dell monitors were never appealing to me and why my first-run 2007WFP is perfect (aside from some gradient issues care of Dell's cost-cutting bottom-bin hardware selection). YES, once you get above around 24" there is more likely to be input lag due to the hardware scaler and size of the panel, which is exactly why if I ever got a larger monitor it would be the 3007WFP (or another brand that offers a low-latency, low-input lag S-IPS display panel, like NEC). Input lag is a deal breaker for me, even though I don't game as much as I used to. It's still important enough that I would settle for a slightly smaller display without it over a larger display that exhibits it.
And YES, all displays have SOME level of input lag. That's just the nature of how things work. But there's a HUGE difference between normal unnoticeable input lag and what is experienced on displays like the 2407 and apparently the new 3008 as well.
FXi - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
I've seen S IPS and S PVA side by side and I'd very much disagree on the contrast and color. PVA is far better, and noticeable if you compare them.As for them having input lag, that I can agree with, they do, but I don't agree that S IPS is superior every time. It too, depending on the scaler chips used, can have severe input lag. Moreover, input lag varies depending on the source and the power (gpu power in the case of pc's) of the source, so sadly cross comparing various sites measurements isn't consistent. So there is a lot more to the story than purely the monitor itself. But it definitely exists. Taking the scalers out of the picture probably made the first generation 30's much more palatable to the gaming crowd.
All I indicated would be nice was a choice, pva and ips in a 30" size from Dell, keeping the best (fastest) scaling chips possible the same between the two and let the consumer decide which format they prefer. And I do realize that various folks have preferences for sure. :)
JarredWalton - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
I'm beginning to think that S-PVA may somehow account for the input lag. It sounds ludicrous, but I have results from seven 24" LCDs right now, and only two don't show significant input lag. The five that show 1 to 3 frames lag are all S-PVA panels (most likely Samsung); the two that don't are TN panels. I've got two more LCDs for the 24" roundup to test (one of which hasn't arrived yet), but so far the evidence is pretty strong. The reference panel, incidentally, is an HP LP3065, which is an S-IPS panel. The two TN panels match it in terms of input lag (sorry - I no longer stock CRTs).yacoub - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
Correct, TN and S-IPS have the least input lag at a given panel size and PVA/MVA have the most. This has been established on several display panel review sites, so your theory is indeed correct. However one must take note that the larger the panel the more input lag will accompany it, even on S-IPS displays. There -are- S-IPS displays out there that exhibit noticeable input lag (though still generally much better than an equivalent PVA panel).Chadder007 - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
And yet they continue to ignore the problems with ghosting on the 2407-HC.....Visual - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
You are referring to overdrive ghosting?I have a 2407-HC, and I haven't noticed it even once in regular use. Maybe I'll see it only with a specially designed test just for that purpose.
Granted, I switched from an old 19" Samsung where response time ghosting was easily noticeable, and I used it so much I got used to it to the point of not minding it in 95% of cases. I also have poor eyesight and wear glasses.
Regardless, the 2407-HC works great for me.
And they do not ignore the problem, like you say. I read that it is fixed in the 2408 - but now they seem to have a problem with input lag and poorer colors. You can't have everything perfect, I guess.
Visual - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
Down with DisplayPort! I'll never ever buy a displayport gpu, and if I buy a monitor with it it will certainly also have HDMI or DVI.I would hate if this standard becomes popular, there is absolutely no reason for it to exist.
Right now I am wondering, would FullHD movies upscaled on a 2560x1600 resolution display look better or worse than on a native 1920x1080 display? It not being an exact multiple, I'm having doubts about how good an upscaler could be... it's like resizing a 32x32 icon to 42x42.
chromeAlterEgo - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
The one feature that has me interested in display port is the ability to daisy chain multiple displays through a single cable.Unfortunately this is for *future* versions so I'm not sure if my 2408 will be compatible or no. The fewer the cables the better!
http://www.displayport.org/simpler-setup/Enhanceme...">http://www.displayport.org/simpler-setup/Enhanceme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantage...">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantage...
FUXX - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
I've been running a Dell 2408WFP and a Palit 9600GT using DisplayPort for about a month now... been pretty happy with it so far. Seems like an improvement over DVI. I had a dead pixel after only a couple weeks on the 2408 though... which makes me a sad panda. :( Only noticable on a completely black screen though.Visual - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
How is it an improvement over DVI in your case? From what I understand, you don't use neither audio over that cable, not a resolution that's too high for DVI, nor anything else that DVI lacks. Are you referring simply to the sleeker ports?And then, even if you did need anything that DVI lacks, HDMI already provides it.
DisplayPort is totally redundant... for now. Soon this will change - it will become actually limiting. Right now your video card has DVI and HDMI outputs besides the newfangled DisplayPort, so you can use it to connect to TVs and other CE products. But if it gets more popular, we might lose that flexibility.
That is the real purpose of those pushing this new standard - separation between the PC and CE markets. And that's what I really hate about DisplayPort.
FXi - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
Ever had an HDMI cable go bad and reject your output screen? If you've ever faced that, then you know HDMI is horribly picky, and incredibly expensive to repair or replace.IMO, that alone makes Displayport a better choice.
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
If they actually have to pay to license HDMI then it is perfectly reasonable to replace it. That is ridiculous.Visual - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
- Most DisplayPort products will also have a HDMI input as well, so they will be paying the full HDMI licenses regardless.- If there eventually are DisplayPort-only products, I myself wouldn't buy them, regardless of the savings offered. I like the convenience of being able to use my monitor with consumer-electronic sources and will pay for it.
- To support HDCP, which is absolutely a necessity, DisplayPort will still have the HDCP licenses, can't avoid that.
- I've not seen a quote about how much the HDMI licenses rises the price of the final products, until then I am not convinced. I mean it is totally not worth it if it's just to save ten bucks.
The last point is perhaps the most important... if the only reason to push DisplayPort on us really is lower price, then they should actually let us know by how much lower it can be. Give us the numbers. Until they do, I just see no reason for DisplayPort.
JarredWalton - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
You mean, besides potentially technological benefits? Honestly, DisplayPort at present is a non-entity, at least in terms of GPUs. There are only a few devices that support it. Now, given the number of HDMI cards and displays, DP has a tough row to hoe; but it may still be the better standard. For one, it has bandwidth already equal to HDMI 1.3, which few are supporting. Second, the packetized data transport may result in future bandwidth scaling.As an example of some of the issues I would like to avoid, I recently connected a Gateway laptop to a Samsung 24" LCD via HDMI. Guess what didn't work? The resolution you would expect: 1920x1200@60 Hz. For whatever reason, the display with HDMI maxed out at 1920x1080@30 Hz. Yuck! I'm not sure if the problem was in the Samsung LCD or in the Gateway laptop, but I do know that if I use a digital interface - DVI, HDMI, or DisplayPort - I had damn well BETTER get the native display resolution.
Oh, and would it be too much to ask for LCDs to identify - and include support for - all the expected widescreen resolutions? 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD is a given, naturally, but I still seem to encounter 24" LCDs that don't immediately inform the PC that they also work with 1680x1050, 1440x900, and 1280x800... and in at least one case I discovered that 1280x800 didn't work right. Dell got this right for sure on the 2407WFP, and I think it was correct with the 2405FPW. Why on earth do I see newer displays (Samsung 245T) that don't always work properly at other 16:10 resolutions!?
/rant
I'm not ready to call DisplayPort good, bad, evil, or anything really. It may end up in the BetaMax camp, though.
Visual - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
Hey, I appreciate all the troubles you're going through and I whole-heartedly agree with you - I'm all for better quality products.But nothing from your rant really has to do with DisplayPort vs HDMI. Nothing shows me what "technological benefits" it has.
So far they are equally good, and despite what hype buzzwords like "packetized data transport" may make you believe, they both can improve the same too.
So then, why do we need both? Why even come up with DisplayPort, when we already had HDMI? Why try to separate the PC and the CE markets?
I'm not saying that DisplayPort is a bad standard - just that it is no better than what we already have, and so is not needed. And I fear that the reason it is being pushed on us by the tech companies may be bad.
JarredWalton - Friday, April 18, 2008 - link
First we need to see where the CE camp heads. If HDMI continues to ship with the old 1.2 standard where the maximum resolution is essentially 1080p, we need a standard that will accommodate future resolutions (and current resolutions) that are much higher than that. How many HDMI 1.3 products are on the market - any?HDMI can be extended - just as the 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 versions indicate. The question is, can DisplayPort extend the standard without requiring new hardware? The packetized data in theory allows you improve without new hardware. I'll believe it when I see it.
You're basically coming out on the conspiracy theory side of things, and I don't see that. I would think if there was a conspiracy, it would be to keep users locked into something like HDMI rather than letting newer, better technologies evolve. DP may or may not be such a technology, but I don't think the purpose of DP is to segment the market into CE and PC devices.
Visual - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
How many TVs with a resolution above 1080p are on the market?Why would you want higher res input if it can't be displayed? Just to get scaled down? That's quite useless, especially considering that pretty much the only source of such signal can be a PC, which is perfectly capable of scaling the output down itself.
And how do you expect HDMI/DP to be extended "without requiring new hardware"? The same thing again, your 2560x1600 display to start accepting 5120x3200 signal and scale it down? I don't see a reason to want this at all, and even less a chance of it happening, with either standard.
OK, I'll not talk to you about conspiracies any more - but the fact remains, that DP is just another alternative of what we already have... with no advantages that I can see yet. Another useless "format war".
BubbaJoe TBoneMalone - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
Where's Dell's Ultrasharp?http://www.maximumpc.com/article/wheres_dells_ultr...">http://www.maximumpc.com/article/wheres_dells_ultr...
Review
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/dell_ultrasharp_3...">http://www.maximumpc.com/article/dell_ultrasharp_3...
Deusfaux - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
#1. the Gateway is an S-PVA panel, not IPS based.#2. The Gateway being the only one with a scaler I tested, also had horrendous input lag, rendering games like Guitar Hero unplayable.
#3. Enthusiast speculation on the 3008's issues would lead me to hope the fix concerns the 2 greatest problems with the monitor
A. it's pretty bad backlight bleed on monitors delivered to customers thus far.
B. the also horrendous input lag introduced with the inclusion of a scaler. Apparently it doesn't matter what resolution you're playing at, or with what input (say, 2560x1600 using dvi from your GPU) you'll have nasty lag.
Personally I find this an unacceptable downgrade from their previous 30" models, and I'll be holding onto my WFP 3007-HC until I can upgrade to something that's not significantly worse in a given area.
B3an - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
I have a 3008 for my graphic design work and the colour is really great. I've read reviews saying otherwise, but have always found these morons have not configured the display beforehand. They have just dumped it on some pre-set.It's really disappointing because the colours are top quality. Anyone who reviews before configuring it is a complete retard, and should not be reviewing monitors in the first place.
MGSsancho - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
the realita and reon (gateways uses the top of the line realita) take 6 seconds to work on the signal once it gets going. remember these scalers work on the image pixel by pixel. they also store some image history in them. normally this isnt a problem for televisionserikejw - Thursday, April 17, 2008 - link
What I have heard and read in reviews is that the colors are abysmal and uniformity bad and there is backbleeding too. Some smaller Dells and the 3007 seems to be much better implemented.Anyone heard anything about the new Samsung 305T that should be available this quarter?
You should review the Daewoo 30" the sells for 900 Euro. it has an S-IPS panel and is very minimalistic when it comes to functions and anything but it is a dirt cheap 30". Might be good for those who don't need professional quality.