Samsung's 19-inch SyncMaster 940UX LCD picks USB

After DisplayLink hit us up with a cordless monitor care of Wireless USB, things really can't get much simpler for connecting LCDs with PC towers, but for those not quite ready to jump into all that, Samsung is reportedly readying a USB-only monitor that'll be showcased at CeBIT. Yep, according to reports, the 19-inch SyncMaster 940UX will be axing the DVI and VGA inputs in favor of a USB 2.0 connector, which means you can finally do away with those flakey USB to VGA adapters of days past. Slated for a May release, the display should sync up with Windows XP initially, with Vista drivers (no OS X love?) to follow shortly thereafter. No other details regarding contrast ratio, resolution, or whether a 0.25-page installation manual will be included is currently available, and more importantly, we're not so sure how your CPU is going to feel about its newfangled processing duties when you plug this sucka in. Still, Samsung claims between "three and five" of these monitors can be plugged in and used at any given time based on the amount of processing requirements your applications have, but the real question is how quickly can ATI / NVIDIA can crank out a next-generation GPU with USB 2.0 outputs, eh?

[Via Slashgear]

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Feb 21st 2007 1:44PM]

What are the benefits of a USB-powered monitor?

Does it power-on quicker or does it require any drivers?

[alain @ Feb 21st 2007 2:00PM]

one thing my buddy said when he showed this to me... multi-monitors for laptops. the solutions out there right now work, but are flaky as heck. now you can have as many monitors as you have free USB ports. not a bad proposition.

[Frank @ Feb 21st 2007 2:36PM]

No, it's not *powered* by USB. It just gets it's signal from USB. USB spec can't supply enough power for a monitor.

[Ian @ Feb 21st 2007 1:50PM]

Why on earth would anyone want this? Is plugging in a DVI or HDMI cable really that difficult? USB2 bandwidth is 480mpbs. I don't see how this monitor can even remotly perform for anything other than running a browser and reading email. Gaming? I really doubt it. Video? Ditto. The driver for this thing would be 100% software on the PC-side so no 3D accelration. Even if the montor had a GPU built in, the low bandwidth of the USB2 conenction would render it useless.

As to ATI and NVIDIA shipping cards with USB ports: Why? Single link DVI, required for a monitor of this class runs at 3.7Gbps. Why should they shoe-horn in some sort of wacky compress-o-matic part to make their cards work with a display that has been designed to solve a problem that does not exist?

[Wolfticket @ Feb 21st 2007 1:52PM]

Hmm... USB to replace DVI on monitors/graphics cards, power adaptors for charging phones and such, as well as transferring data. Seems to makes sense, simplification is good.

[Scooter @ Feb 21st 2007 2:04PM]

I'm all for "simplification," but it better be of equal (or better) quality and performance...

Scooter
http://www.gadgetgrid.com/

[Pat @ Feb 21st 2007 2:20PM]

Ship this with a full screen driver for Windows Mobile and CE devices and you have a winner. This plugged into a powered hub with a keyboard/mouse, printer, and a late model PDA/SmartPhone as a docking stations and goodbye office PC.

[Michael @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:20AM]

"Ship this with a full screen driver for Windows Mobile and CE devices and you have a winner. This plugged into a powered hub with a keyboard/mouse, printer, and a late model PDA/SmartPhone as a docking stations and goodbye office PC."

Amen...thats exactly what I was thinking. I see the next few generations of smartphones beginning to replace PC's in an office setting, and this technology seems to fit in seamlessly.

[Bob @ Feb 21st 2007 2:01PM]

I just don't understand? Why?

[telepheedian @ Feb 22nd 2007 6:34PM]

Because it would be cool, and their design team wants to feel useful.

[Jacob Varghese @ Feb 21st 2007 2:03PM]

I've been wondering for a while why monitors couldn't utilize usb connections.

I think it would be best if all our peripherals could be connected via USB.

I'm no video expert, but does video processing really require more than 480mbps?

[Phoenixfury @ Feb 21st 2007 2:08PM]

I can answer why anyone would want this. Multiple displays is the likely answer to this one. Most people do not have more than one VGA or DVI output on their PC, but they may have plenty of USB ports they can use. This may also be a great solution for those with notebooks that either don't have a monitor output, or for those that need a second or even a 3rd display. I don't think this is a gaming solution at all, it's more about desktop space I would think.

[Joe Davenport @ Feb 21st 2007 2:26PM]

"(no OS X love?)"

?? I thought that macs magically connect to everything? ..that's what those commercials told me.

[tiuk @ Feb 21st 2007 2:31PM]

They magically connect to official Apple peripherals.

[dungeon @ Feb 22nd 2007 3:20AM]

Surely if you used powered USB (12v or 24v) you could power the LCD

[T-Bone @ Feb 21st 2007 2:35PM]

480MB/s is not enough for video processing but this is just a display, not a GPU. 480MB/s may be enough for displaying everything. I know it is good enough for simultaneous 5.1 gaming sound-effects generation and full duplex recording, I've done it with my USB soundcard just to verify the claim in the manual.

[Phoenixfury @ Feb 21st 2007 2:47PM]

I think 480MBPS should be more than enough when you consider OTA high definition television on average is broadcast in the neighborhood of 19MBPS. Granted there likely isn't any GPU capability built into this monitor, but I don't think it would be needed for the reasons I already stated anyway. It's all about desktop workspace, not gaming or multimedia.

[strider_mt2k @ Feb 21st 2007 2:41PM]

For non-intensive applications there's nothing wrong with this at all.
It WOULD be a quick-and-dirty way to get a second monitor up if needed.

[DB @ Feb 21st 2007 3:14PM]

My monitors resolution is 1280x1024 @ 32bits per pixel. that would require 40Mb per frame, at USB's Thereoretical 480Mbps, I would only get 12FPS. Since USB doen't run nearly as fast as its theoretical speed, the frame rate would be too slow to display anything that moves.

P.S.
Everyone, use correct capitalization in units, MB and Mb differ by a factor of 8.

[Ryan @ Feb 21st 2007 4:44PM]

An OTA HDTV stream is compressed MPEG-2 video. Not a stream of millions of pixels of RGB data at 60-75fps.

[Jeff @ Feb 21st 2007 2:57PM]

Talk about some faulty assumptions going on here...

Phoenixfury is right - all that matters is that the *video bandwidth* is enough to carry the signal. That's a constant number, which is a function of pixel count times display rate times color depth. It's simple math, and 480mbps is more than enough - by about 20 times.

This isn't about swapping data in and out of memory and processing it. The 480mbps refers to the bandwidth of the *video signal*.

The issue would seem to be that your graphics card is basically being bypassed completely - in fact, sounds like you don't even need one if the video card stop in your BIOS can be bypassed. That means your CPU is handling all the math that's normally done by your GPU. Which means yes, you're not going to get great performance. But assume for a minute that a graphics card with USB output did exist - let's say an R600 with USB out. It would perform exactly the same as an R600 with DVI out, and all it would require is a standard USB cable.

One possible use I could see for a monitor like this would be as a secondary monitor, even for playing games. You could, for example, run a flight simulator using your graphics card on a standard monitor, but put all of your gauges on a secondary monitor through your USB port.

[Ken Miller @ Feb 21st 2007 3:01PM]

480 megabits per second is definitely going to constrain it unless there is some major data compression going on (e.g. only send changes):

(480,000,000 bits/second) / (1280x1024 pixels/frame x 32 bits/pixel) = 11.4 frames/second

[Russ @ Feb 21st 2007 5:24PM]

And that's assuming you have a steady 480Mbps - which you don't, since USB 2.0 is only capable of that speed in bursts.

[Brandon Halsne @ Feb 21st 2007 3:16PM]

Actually i think this is designed to do away with onboard graphics as they are totally useless anyway this will be more for a workstation than for a home pc i highly doubt they will market this as home computer solution but more for a business enviroment or as a way to add a second monitor to a laptop or pc easily there is no way it will be aimed at the high end or even the mid range pc market

[Wolfticket @ Feb 21st 2007 3:41PM]

480mbps/12 frames per second does seem to be a limit. Maybe some sort of optimised USB video port on a graphic card could solve this. Anyway, I like the idea. I don't see why you should really need more than one type of cable for most digital connections. USB 3 anyone? :)

[Mike @ Feb 21st 2007 3:48PM]

At 480Mbps it wouldn't be fast enough for fast motion or video, but there are lots of things this would be very useful for. Personally, I love having a treo with all the apps that I can load on it, but I hate the small screen. If I could plug a monitor into it occasionally it would be fantastic. I believe this type of thing is the ultra-portable "laptop" of the future: a computer in a cellphone, to which you can attach a monitor and a keyboard at will. You will always need higher power for gaming, but for the vast majority of apps fast update is not necessary.

[Muu @ Feb 23rd 2007 1:04PM]

If it's really a widescreen monitor, it may very well be 1280x800, in which case...

480*1024*1024/(1280*800*8bit)=61.44

It'd be possible to have 60Hz output, even if they forego any sort of compression.

[js @ Feb 21st 2007 4:03PM]

Cinema Displays FTW!!! Apple Rulz!!

[shimman @ Feb 21st 2007 4:44PM]

very interesting; it has a potential to become a standard for business (especially for day traders ;) )

here are benefits

1. expendable; those who are suck with single or twin monitor without the possibility of adding extra graphic ports

2. cheaper; you don't have to buy any graphic hardware nor integrated solution

3. easier; as long as usb monitor can be a standard, it will be as simple as using usb thumb drive

4. wireless usb might be able to offer wireless solution



cons

1. gamers should look elsewhere

2. it is possible to slow down the system & computability problems may need to be address

[alek @ Feb 21st 2007 10:21PM]

what if i want to hook up 4 to my pc? haha, no dice?

[Dean Johnson @ Feb 21st 2007 5:05PM]

Looks like it's gonna to be about $650

http://www.ministryoftech.com/2007/02/21/samsung-syncmaster-940ux-lcd-usb-only/

[Sean O @ Feb 22nd 2007 1:10PM]

This is ridiculous. Uncompressed video over USB 2.0. Please.

480 MegaBITS per second isn't even close to being enough bandwidth for a 19" monitor. 1280x1024 - that'd be like 13fps at 24-bit color would max out the bandwidth.

That's of course if we all get together and pretend that USB 2.0 is really 480mbps. It's not. You can get bursts up to that. For constant reliable bandwidth that you'll need for this kind of application, it's gonna happen.

This experiment will die quickly.

[Joe @ Feb 21st 2007 11:09PM]

It makes no sense for someone to use one of these as a primary monitor, but if you wanted to run multiple monitors for a PC or labtop I could see why something like this would come in handy

[Guffy @ Feb 21st 2007 8:14PM]

It sounds interesting, but rather useless. The current DVI and even VGA ports are fine? But, I do agree that itd be handy to convert most ports to one standard, aka USB. And itd be really easy to hook up 2 or 3 monitors using USB, but Im not sure how all that is going to work with your graphics card. If it bypasses it completely itd sorta defeat the purpose. Even if newer graphics cards will be shipped with one or more USB ports, itd only benefit those with the new cards.

Also, if the monitor comes shipped with a built-in graphics card, that would be terrible. When you want to upgrade your graphics card, you need to ditch the monitor as well and get another usb-monitor?

[Cynoclast @ Feb 21st 2007 7:19PM]

This is completely retarded. USB 2.0 doesn't have nearly the bandwidth required for high resolution video that even VGA does.

My old boat anchor of a CRT could do 2048x1536 @ 75hz in 32bit color. I'm not bragging, do the math for yourself. It works out to 7200Mbps per second of data going through the VGA cable. USB 2.0 has a *theoretical* maximum of 480MBps.

Hell my LCDs 22" & 19" LCDs which don't have nearly the resolution, refresh rate, or color depth of my old CRT still require 1616Mbps per second and 1504Mbps per second respectively.

Even under the absolute best of circumstances (which you won't ever get due to sharing the USB and PCI busses) the best performance you can expect out of a USB 2.0 video cable is 800x600 at 16bits and 60hz. Welcome to 1985.

[ThisIsNotMyHandel @ Feb 21st 2007 6:34PM]

Is this a joke?

There is(or rather should be) no market for this.

USB is great for printers, scanners, and small flash drives. USB is NOT good from large I/O operations. The fact of the matter is that USB has such a large overhead that it is not practical. Firewire would be the way to go.

[JustZisGuy @ Feb 21st 2007 10:52PM]

Whoa there. Let's try this calculation again. Note that color depth is actually 24 bit, 32 bit includes 8 bits of padding or alpha channel.

(1280x1024 pixels) x (24 bit color depth) = 31.4 Mbits per frame

Now USB 2.0 Hi-Speed runs at 480 Mbits/s
(480 Mbits/s) / (31.4 Mbits) = 15.3 frame/s

That's not terrific, but we are assuming every pixel changes in every frame and no compression is taking place. Samsung in the original article (in German) says that only the deltas will be sent, meaning for a typical office application or web browsing, this will do just fine. Heise Online tested the monitor on a low end laptop with 720p video without problems.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that graphics cards do not need USB ports to accelerate these monitors (and how would that work precisely?), they simply need to do their processing and hand off the frame to the monitor driver for transport.

[Nogami @ Feb 21st 2007 8:03PM]

I assume this will have some market for additional monitors, or monitors in remote locations, but of course you wouldn't get a display until the system initialized the drivers, so if you're trying to reinstall your OS or something and this is your only display, you have a problem...

[tchiseen @ Feb 21st 2007 8:07PM]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

VGA DVI is so far the fastest way of sending info to monitors, and, as a gamer, this 'trend' or what have you, is very bad.

Please come out with USB 3.0 before coming out with USB 3.0 monitors. And it' better be fast.

[Paul D @ Feb 22nd 2007 5:12AM]

USB 2.0's sustained data speed is only about half that of FW400, according to real-life tests.

[sources: http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm
and http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html]

That probably means a sustained speed of 150 mb/sec or less — enough for maybe 4-5 frames per second. On top of that, other devices (like mice and storage devices) might also be using your USB bus, and if I recall correctly, USB devices cannot reserve bandwidth like Firewire devices can.

Perhaps they'll boost the fps a little with compression, but if it's lossy it'll suck, and if it's lossless it'll only help when most of your display is static. And in any case, that's a lot of work you're making the CPU do. (Note that the CPU is already responsible for controlling the USB bus, unlike FW and DVI, which have their own hardware controllers.)

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 22nd 2007 8:10AM]

And someone failed to mention that USB devices really put a strain on your processor as well?

[Lonnie McClure @ Feb 24th 2007 4:35PM]

dungeon:

USB power is neither 12 or 24 volts, nor does such an option exist. USB power is 5 volts, with 500ma specified as the maximum, giving 2.5 watts as the total any USB powered device can expect to have at its disposal.

[carlos @ Mar 27th 2007 12:20PM]

how much will it cost??
any tour of the monitor??