backtop

Hardware Dell Ships Second DisplayPort Equipped LCD
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - February 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by overzealot.. on Mar 2 at 10:16 AM

Dell 2408WFP 24-inch LCD  (Source: Dell)

Dell 2408WFP Connectivity  (Source: Dell)
Dell ships 24-inch 2408WFP LCD with DisplayPort

DisplayPort will be the interface of the future for computers and video cards and displays with the interface built-in are slowly beginning to trickle onto the market.

Dell launched its second display featuring an integrated DisplayPort, the Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP. If the 2408WFP sounds familiar, it's because the display was first announced in December 2007 and just started shipping this week.

The display has a 24-inch screen and a 6ms typical response time. The contrast ratio is dynamic at up to 3000:1 and the display is capable of producing 110% of the color gamut. The displays native resolution is 1920 x 1200 and it can display full 1080p resolution as well.

The pixel pitch of the display is 0.27mm and the brightness is 400cd/m2. Viewing angles are 178 degrees horizontal and vertical and the panel is coated in with an anti-glare coating. Connectivity options include the aforementioned DisplayPort, DVI-D with HDCP, S-video, composite, component, and HDMI.

Dell says the monitor can adjust for height through 100mm of travel and swivels 45 degrees left and right. The display can also tilt 21 degrees forward and 3 degrees back. A four port USB hub is built-in along with a 9-in-2 memory card reader and a Kensington security port.

The 2408WFP measures 15.62 – 19.56-inches tall x 22.04-inches wide x 8.17-inches deep and weighs 21.74 pounds. The Dell 2408WFP will retail for $699. The 24-inch 2408WFP will sit right below the previously launched 30-inch Dell 3008WFP that retails for $1,999.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Soo why?
By drwho9437 on 2/28/2008 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we need it, exactly?




RE: Soo why?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/28/2008 3:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
**Scratches Head**

I'm still using DVI. HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort... just pick a standard and leave us all alone ;)


RE: Soo why?
By AlphaVirus on 2/28/2008 4:51:15 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously! I think there are still people using VGA and majority of users (with new computers) are using DVI. A small percent use HDMI, and how many use DP?

The highest I plan on upgrading is up too HDMI. I dont see what DP offers over it. Its like the Mac of the graphics display market.


RE: Soo why?
By eye smite on 2/28/2008 5:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
Raises hand

Still using vga on a kvm switch. :-)


RE: Soo why?
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
Heh.

At home, using a CRT over VGA (thank you, 10bpp at 2048x1536), and 3840x2400 over dual-link + single-link DVI-D.

At work, using an LVDS LCD and five CRTs, between two computers (thank you, PCI graphics cards of the ancient and free persuasion).

I can still do a TV (SVHS), projector (VGA or SVHS) and a cheap LCD (VGA) if I want more screens.

I've also got some VGA rocker-switch KVMs.

The reason DVI could take off is that it had backward-compatibility with VGA, with a dongle. Dual-link DVI is relatively painless (if you read the small print in the specifications) for similar reasons. HDMI can be trivially run over a DVI connector with a purely mechanical dongle, which helps its penetration.

HDMI type B (dual-link) is almost unused because of the lack of compatibility with HDMI type A. Due to the lack of dual-link support and analogue outputs, graphics cards with HDMI sockets are generally less capable than those with a second DVI connector; they're also cheaper to make, which doesn't stop a premium being charged for them. The HTPC crowd is willing to pay this either for the convenience of not having a dongle, or because they've had it drummed into them that HDMI is the next big thing by the TV salesmen.

DisplayPort loses backwards compatibility with everything. The adaptors are either full of non-trivial electronics, or rely on the hardware having two unrelated sets of video signal controllers which happen to share a set of pins. It may take off due to industry support, but it's gone about it the hard way.

My favoured connector would result from someone adding a pair of 340MHz TMDS transmitters to a dual-link DVI-I output. That would support VGA (via DVI-A), DVI-D (single- and dual-link) and HDMI 1.3 (via a DVI-D to HDMI dongle), with the option of HDMI 1.3 type B 680MHz transmission as a bonus extra. That would actually be a step forwards in display capability. DisplayPort, as far as I've been able to tell, gains us very little.


RE: Soo why?
By AstroCreep on 2/28/2008 6:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Pfft.
Where's your entrepreneurial spirit? :p

I'm going to make a new HD connection standard...based on a CAT6 cable and RJ45 connectors and call it "HDMIDP". And charge far out the ass for it, while calling it a "Standard".


RE: Soo why?
By P4blo on 2/29/2008 5:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
I see all the doubters over this new standard but I can identify one really exciting reason to love DisplayPort if you're a bit of an enthusiast. 3 Screen gaming setups. Until now the only way to get a proper 3 screen setup was with something like a specialist Matrox that has 3 outputs on the same card but the 3D performance always sucked. Even in SLi (giving 4 ports, 2 per card) you cant hookup a 3 screen gaming setup as it cant split the output between the two cards in SLi. Now with DisplayPort you can chain the monitors so in theory 3 screen setup off one card is a reality. Just imagine putting a couple of cheap 19 or 20" LCD's either side of your 24" widescreen and running flight sims or driving games! This could finally usher in a new era of games being coded to handle three displays.

Bring it on I say!


RE: Soo why?
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 10:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
To the best of my knowledge, no current DisplayPort setup implements monitor chaining, even though it's one of the proposed features of the standard. Since the bandwidth limit of the (highest spec version of) DisplayPort is the equivalent of a 360MHz 24bpp video signal (i.e. below the high end pixel clock that VGA RAMDACs can do in 30bpp), there's a limit to how many screens you'd want to try driving before you run out of bandwidth and want to add another cable anyway. Such a solution is equivalent to a TripleHead2Go, and with similar bandwidth. Additionally, EDID has a limit of 4095 pixels on the nominal dimensions of a monitor; things will get awkward if you try to chain lots together, even if you can live with the low bandwidth.

You're much better of either using games which support multiple monitors and graphics cards natively (e.g. Microsoft Flight Simulator), or hoping that the drivers catch up to what xdmx can do on non-Windows platforms and present multiple monitors as a single display. At least then the rendering workload is also shared across multiple graphics cards.


RE: Soo why?
By Owls on 2/28/2008 3:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know too. I understand it's a simple google search away.

Sarcasm aside, it sure sounds like a good way to confuse the consume. "DisplayPort? On a monitor? Isn't that like VGA?"


RE: Soo why?
By amanojaku on 2/28/2008 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 5
Well, we don't. The video industry loves it because it uses 128-bit AES encryption that is stronger than that found in the HDCP used by HDMI. The resolution is just a hair better than HDMI.

The only real benefit I'm aware of is support for fiber optic cables. This means you can have a display that is farther from the source than any copper cable would allow.


RE: Soo why?
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
DPCP was so popular that DisplayPort was obliged to support HDCP as an alternative. Which is, of course, something that one has to pay a licence fee for.

The bandwidth (360MHz at 24bpp) is slightly better than single-link HDMI 1.3 (340MHz) and the lowest common capability of dual-link DVI (330MHz), but compares poorly to the, admittedly not rolled out, type B HDMI (dual-link) connector (680MHz, with HDMI 1.3) or the 400MHz 30-bit DACs which VGA has been using for years. Dual-link DVI has no official upper limit to bandwidth.

I believe current DisplayPort implementations are copper-based. Gefen do fibre-optic (and CAT 5) adaptors for DVI.


RE: Soo why?
By Snowy on 2/28/2008 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 4
I believe companies have to license HDMI, while DP is free.


RE: Soo why?
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 10:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
DP has no inherent fee, although I believe there's no patent agreement which would stop users of DisplayPort being charged in the future. DisplayPort which uses HDCP still has to pay the HDCP licence, AFAIK. I consider it to be worth the few cents of an HDMI licence to avoid the proliferation of yet another standard, and the need to add another connector to everything (until DisplayPort is everywhere, you still need to have HDMI and/or DVI/VGA anyway; adding an extra connector can never save money until you can get rid of the old ones).


RE: Soo why?
By theslug on 2/29/2008 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Because it doesn't have annoying screw-on connectors like VGA and DVI do. It will be the computer equivalent of HDMI.


not for me
By DeepBlue1975 on 2/28/2008 4:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
I think I'll wait till led backlit lcds start coming alone to retire my almost 2 year old dell 2007wfp.

I want the extra size of a 24" but not so badly as to feel compelled to change it only for that factor.

Oh, this one supports displayport? Great, I couldn't care less, thank you.




RE: not for me
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2008 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
2 year old monitor? I've got an LCD from 2003 I'm still using and will continue to use for years until it dies. And I'm sure there's many more people with 10+ year old giant CRTs (sorry I just don't like 75+ lb monitors).


RE: not for me
By daftrok on 2/28/2008 10:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
They really need to stop making CRT monitors. LCD monitors are loads better.

1) Less heat
2) Less space
3) Less power
4) No lead
5) Less dangerous chemicals being shot at your face
6) Less noise
7) Lasts longer

Less is MORE! And on top of that, LED monitors would be another great leap

1) Less power
2) Brighter
3) Wider color gamut
4) No mercury (and usually arsenic)
5) Lasts longer
6) Thinner display


RE: not for me
By djc208 on 2/28/2008 10:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
Well they really only offer them on the low end/budget side any more. You can still get a 15 or 17" CRT cheaper than an LCD if only barely any more.

Otherwise CRTs are still the gold standard for video performance. Better black levels, viewing angles, and response times. LCDs are definitely the future but they're always compared to the old CRT.


RE: not for me
By spluurfg on 2/28/2008 11:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Otherwise CRTs are still the gold standard for video performance. Better black levels, viewing angles, and response times.


Not to mention color accuracy. Awesome stuff as long as you weren't one of those people who got headaches.


RE: not for me
By Blight AC on 2/29/2008 8:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
And CRT's could scale resolution really well. None of the ugly blocks if you prefer anything but the default resolution. With a monitor like the Dell one here, your basically stuck with 1920x1200 resolution, and lowering resolution was a great way to increase FPS on games without sacrificing eye candy. I have an older Dell 24" and at anything less then 1920x1200 looks blurry. :(

Also, the Dell 24" here can also rotate 90 degrees, something that wasn't mentioned in the main article. Extremely nice for viewing long web pages or tall images. ;)

Oh.. and this has Display Port and HDMI connectors, but it looks like the audio out is a standard 2 channel jack. What's the point of that if you can't do 5+channel audio. It'd be nice if the only connector I had to run from my PC to my desk was a DisplayPort or HDMI, oh, and the USB connector too for the Monitor's USB connectors.

You know, if DisplayPort came with USB 2.0 support so that the Monitor didn't need that extra cable for the built in USB Hub, that would be worth it. Then all I'd need to get is a good 10 foot, or longer, DisplayPort cable and connect the desk stuff directly to the monitor, and have more options for where I put the PC Case. Slap an optical or Co-Ax out for HD audio on the monitor to connect your 5+ channel speakers. Man.. that would be sweet.


RE: not for me
By GTVic on 2/28/2008 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
If you couldn't care less you wouldn't bother to create such a meaningless post.