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.


DisplayPort
By mcloud777 on 2/28/2008 4:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like nobody knows the reason DisplayPort was created in the first place, so check out this link for some background information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort




RE: DisplayPort
By HighWing on 2/28/2008 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 5
Hmm ok so it's a License Free port that also offerers encryption. And because of that, in another few years we will all need to get new monitors and TVs. Since it is royalty-free I'm sure all the manufactures are gonna jump on this and claim it's "cheaper" to add in. Then they won't pass the savings onto the consumer and we're all left wondering "Why did we need this again?"


RE: DisplayPort
By daftrok on 2/28/2008 10:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Though DisplayPorts applications are utterly useless for those with televisions, it is perfect for home theaters and classrooms. Unlike HDMI, DisplayPort wires can go much further distance without the need for another device. So if your home theater is setup in such a way that the distance from your projector to your cable box or whatever is more than 30 or so feet and you want 1080p, DisplayPort is the way to go. Classrooms can benefit from this as well, but schools tend to be cheap and stick with analog VGA instead.


RE: DisplayPort
By BansheeX on 2/29/2008 4:49:44 AM , Rating: 2
I think displayport should lose to HDMI purely on the basis of HDMI beating it to the market. If these companies were so god-damned concerned about royalties, they should have acted sooner. They didn't, now it's time to pay the piper, consumers have adopted HDMI and don't want yet another stupid standard. Digital, being perfect, was supposed to fix the problem of having all those analog formats, rf, composite, s-video, component, vga. Now digital is getting to be just as bad. Hooray!


RE: DisplayPort
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I'd always thought DisplayPort was brought about in an attempt by VESA to justify their existence, and supported by Dell on the insistence by management that the company take the technical lead in a technology. I may be bitter and twisted.

At the time DisplayPort was thought up, it made sense. The appearance of HDMI 1.3 (with nearly-matching bandwidth - not that there's much use of high colour depth anyway, and DisplayPort doesn't isn't enough of a step to get QWUXGA over a single cable), the need to license HDCP, and the lack of guarantees about future charges for the format have all rained on its parade a bit. I have nothing against DisplayPort - it's a more technically pleasing standard than HDMI, for example, and I approve of the grippy connector - but I don't see how it adds anything that compensates for the format war and consumer confusion (how many lanes does your DisplayPort monitor use - anyone?) which will ensue.

One "okay" standard is usually better than a non-backwards-compatible incremental improvement. Just ask UDI.


cry me a river
By TheriusDrake on 2/28/2008 9:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Display port is a good thing. Just because some of you are still using bump displays that still use VGA doesnt mean that some people don't want to move forward with faster and higher res monitors. DVI doesnt even support my monitor's reso.

I run a Dell 30" at 2560x1600 which currently requires a Dual Link DVI cable.




RE: cry me a river
By Blight AC on 2/29/2008 8:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
Actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Definition_Multi...
quote:
For example, previously, the maximum pixel clock rate of the interface was 165 MHz, sufficient for supporting 1080p at 60 Hz or WUXGA (1920x1200), but HDMI 1.3 increased that to 340 MHz, providing support for WQXGA (2560x1600) and beyond across a single digital link.


RE: cry me a river
By phenom32 on 2/29/2008 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think that's only the theoretic maximum for HDMI, but there aren't any devices that can output anywhere close to that resolution. The maximum attained for HDMI now is still only 1080p @ 60Hz on 8-bit color depth.

Where as DisplayPort right now supports 2560x1600 @ 60Hz on maximum 10-bit color depth. (Samsung is coming out with a 30" native 10-bit LCD panel)

To my understanding, DP is a free standard designed and backed up by the PC industry where as HDMI is a license based standard that are backed up by consumer electronic companies.

There are other advantage to DP as well on the mobile side.
[QUOTE]The data transmission protocol in DisplayPort is Micro-Packet based which is extensible in future to add features, whereas DVI/HDMI transmission protocol is Serial Data Stream at 10x pixel clock rate. However one of the biggest advantage that DisplayPort provides over DVI/HDMI is that DisplayPort is intended to consolidate both external(box-to-box) and internal (LCD panel) display connections.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
[/QUOTE]


RE: cry me a river
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 11:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
"DVI doesn't even support my display resolution" isn't true; DVI merely specifies that above 165MHz one should switch to a dual-link configuration. Dual-link has been there since the start of DVI - the fact that not all graphics cards or cables support it is a separate issue.

HDMI 1.3 indeed raises the single-link maximum bandwidth to 340MHz. (Most dual-link DVI outputs can reach at least 330MHz, since they have to have got to 165MHz in order to justify being dual-link in the first place, and the two links tend to by symmetrical.) Type B connections on HDMI are dual-link; if anyone used them, that'd be 680MHz as a starting point.

I've no idea whether the 3008WFP actually supports reaching WQXGA over a single-link HDMI 1.3 connection; it may be limited to 165MHz.

At least in 24bpp, the WQXGA monitors only actually need about 250MHz of bandwidth, well within dual-link DVI, HDMI 1.3 and DisplayPort.

On the other hand, WQUXGA monitors (mine's currently being driven off a dual-link DVI + a single-link DVI) can't reach their native frequency - let alone 60Hz - within the bandwidth capabilities of DisplayPort. I'd be a lot less scathing of the standard if it had enough bandwidth to support WQUXGA with a single cable, since it's the most common "next standard up" from WQXGA, and existing standards are perfectly capable of handling WQXGA down a single cable already. If only HDMI type B connectors were more common.


confused anyone?
By Bigjee on 2/28/2008 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just when the format war is over ; companies want to make it more confusing for the consumer by making a 4th interface (vga, dvi, hdmi and now the Display port. And of course there the component cables also that most game consoles are bundled with.)

Why cant companies stick to a particular standard. If there is one high def format why cant they have at the most 2 standard interfaces. I mean HDMI hasn't even gone mainstream and here we have Dell shipping monitors with display port.




RE: confused anyone?
By KernD on 2/28/2008 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Please stop complaining, this is a good thing.
And no there is not 4 interface to confuse consumer(There is more than that for TVs), in 5-8 years there will be two for PC (DP for your screen and HDMI so you can output to a TV).
What is wrong with that? VGA has been dying for a while, DVI will also die, quicker than VGA hopefully.

DP is like USB, it will get better with time while not braking compatibility, thats good news for all of you who gets confused, because they will be able to stick with it for a long time.


RE: confused anyone?
By Fluppeteer on 2/29/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
In 5-8 years I'll still have a lot of devices that use a VGA connection, or DVI. Dual-link DVI-I supports all of them, with no nominal limit on the performance. HDMI is DVI-D (usually single-link, with a higher changeover bandwidth to dual-link as of 1.3) in a cheaper connector, for consumer devices.

DVI as a computer connector supports almost all current computer displays (ignoring the 1600SW on which I'm typing this). Chopping off the dual-link support and analogue output removes backwards compatibility and reduces the capability. That doesn't mean it won't happen, to save a few cents, but it won't be a good thing.

DVI and HDMI can sensibly coexist because it's so easy to convert between the two; they may be two standards, but they have a common subset. The same is not true of DisplayPort.

Using DisplayPort to run a computer display adds very little that DVI or HDMI cannot already do. It's true that the connector may be slightly better, that the cable length might be improved as default, that the bandwidth is very slightly better depending on what you're comparing, and that the standard is "cleaner" - if it existed first, I'd be completely behind DisplayPort. I don't consider any of this to be a good enough reason to throw away backwards compatibility.

The move from VGA to DVI took a very long time, in part because single-link DVI-D is a worse solution for most CRTs. It was only when low resolution LCDs became ubiquitous that DVI-D became a sensible option, because the use for the extra bandwidth was lost and the benefits of digital were more justifiable.

There's no such benefit to DisplayPort: it's not guaranteed to be licence-free (especially with HDCP) even if this the potential savings weren't lost in the extra connectors for the change-over period; there's no particular use for the extra bandwidth (already enough for WQXGA, not enough for WQUXGA); HDMI already supports higher colour depths at high resolutions (as does DVI, strictly speaking). You can't point someone at a DisplayPort screen and show them why it's better than a DVI version, like you can with DVI vs VGA (over a dodgy cable).

DisplayPort's future capabilities may be impressive. It would be nice to think that high resolutions are going to start appearing (my WQUXGA screen is from 2003), and that the standard will expand to cope. However, the same may be true of HDMI (which already has a higher-bandwidth variant, even if no-one uses it), and, here and now, DisplayPort doesn't have a reason to move to it. There's no reason to believe that HDMI and DVI won't stay backwards-compatible - unless, of course, we all switch to an arbitrary incompatible format, such as DisplayPort.


Color Gamut?
By mlmoorex on 2/29/2008 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
"the display is capable of producing 110% of the color gamut."

A gamut is a color system so according to this statement the monitor is able to produce 10% more colors than it is capable to produce. What?




RE: Color Gamut?
By overzealot on 3/2/2008 10:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
The DT article for some reason leaves out the gamut standard used for that comparison (CIE 1976). It is noted correctly on the Dell page for the 2408WFP.


typo in the heading.
By SilthDraeth on 2/28/2008 3:53:10 PM , Rating: 1
Dell ships is... should be Dell ships its




RE: typo in the heading.
By SecTech767 on 2/29/2008 9:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
Having an extended display for this would just be selfish. Its 24"... And besides, the televison and computer market are already begining to fuse into one another. I heard a leak that Sony is developing a 22" wall mountable all in one PC. Sony is also working out whether or not they want to include a blu ray disk drive with it. This is a plus because buying the system as a whole reduces your wholesale markup. The system will include HDMI input, so it can double as a television. This along with Sony's new Cybershot and line of extrodinary Vaios shows Sonys effort to jump back in the market. Come on DailyTech... wheres the articals for these?!?


displayport
By flush1 on 2/28/2008 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Crystal display should have had display port!! Btw, "its" not "is" :P.




Where's the Anandtech Review
By GTVic on 2/28/2008 6:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Anandtech hinted a while back that they were waiting for an NDA to expire before posting a review of a new Dell monitor. Is this it and when will the review be posted?




Nooooooooooo!!!!!
By dhalilahma on 2/28/2008 7:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
I work in a computer shop, everyday, I mean everyday of my life I spend half an hour saying, vga?, HDMI?, ADC?????, Svideo?, COMPOSITE!!!! COMPONENT!!!! aaaarrrgghhh!!!




By Deusfaux on 2/29/2008 3:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
What's the point of all those inputs if you can't get anything non-HD to display correctly without distortion?

Notice the distinct lack of 4:3 an 16:9 scaling modes... That means its either 3:2 or 16:10 for all your SD content! Brilliant!

No wait, stupid!




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki