Samsung's 30-inch LCD with world's first DisplayPort -- game-on HDMI

It's on HDMI fans, the first LCD panel sporting a VESA-approved DisplayPort 1.1 jack was just announced by Samsung -- a world's first. The 30-inch LCD pumps a 2,560 x 1,600 pixels with a 10-bit color depth at a smokin' data rate of 10.8Gbps over a single port. In other words, kiss your DVI (and VGA ultimately) spec goodbye as their days are numbered. In addition to the port, we're talking about a Sammy S-PVA panel with 180-degree viewing angle, 1,000:1 contrast, 6-ms response, and 300cd/m2 brightness. Surprisingly, it's not scheduled for production delivery until Q2 of 2008. Later than we expected especially if it's truly the first to ship. Nevertheless, January's CES is set to be a regular DisplayPort free-for-all with plenty of laptop support provided by Dell, HP, and Lenovo among others.

[Via Akihabara News]

[AlexP @ Jul 25th 2007 2:55AM]

IMO, there's no way DisplayPort is going to conquer/beat HDMI.

Probably will end up as "popular" as optical ports.

[CharlieX @ Jul 25th 2007 3:23AM]

May be a better tech, but too late to the game. HDMI is what Best Buy understands and what manufacturers know consumers are looking for. Throw too many technologies at grandma and she's going to glaze over

[DAZA @ Jul 25th 2007 4:21AM]

I agree. Newer LCD monitors and LCD/Plasma TVs are all coming equipped with HDMI connectivity. Why should we all of a sudden want to use DisplayPort? It doesn't even transmit audio over the cable.

There are some minor advantages, such as being able to transmit over greater lengths than HDMI, but with HDMI already pretty deep into the market, why even bother with DisplayPort.

Yes, digital is good. But having too many cables that seem to do the exact same thing is bad. This equals more unnecessary ports, more cables, more SKUs and most importantly, more confusion.

[Brian @ Jul 25th 2007 5:32AM]

Hell, HDMI is too much for most people to handle. It's quite difficult to tell people that the televisions can still connect the same way as there old TV, let alone the other ways they can connect everything. I was telling a couple about my age (early- to mid-twenties) that soon they would have to use 7-1 to watch channel 7 because they used an antenna. You could see it in their eyes that their brains shut down. I even showed them what they would have to do, while the woman then understood what I was saying, the guy never seemed to catch on.

[EileenR @ Jul 25th 2007 5:30PM]

DisplayPort was developed with the intention of supporting the higher bandwidth needs of PC display systems. HDMI is primarily for television applications. The DisplayPort standard is much simplier to implement and therefore more cost effective for manufacturers. The added bonus with DisplayPort is that it provides power on the connector pins allowing for easy optical active cable solutions to support longer reach applications like digital signage and projection systems, where the 1.8 meter copper cable simply cannot cut it. With HDMI external power supplies are needed not to mention the HDMI cables fall out because there are no latches.

Don't write off optics yet, we are coming.

E

[L.Rawlins @ Jul 25th 2007 3:26AM]

It's not intended to compete with HDMI. It's simply an exercise in efficiency for those display standards yet to drop off the radar. I for one welcome being able to get a few more USB ports where the VGA/DVI ports used to be.

[rip @ Jul 25th 2007 3:45AM]

I'm guessing a lot of people still use vga, even though it's the equivalent of an rf adapter. Which they happen to still make for the consoles... so someone must be hooking their ps2 up to a 25 year old tv set...

A lot of PC people would still be using 5.25 floppies and ISA boards if they could...

[sizzel @ Jul 25th 2007 4:12AM]

its for the best that we are no longer using 5.25 floopies. the quicker analog stuff is abolished the better

[vermaak @ Jul 25th 2007 4:15AM]

I thought when this was first announced it was mainly intended for the computer market to deal with higher resolutions in the future.

Putting this onto a TV is not the way forward due to HDMI. This is really here to replace the lower bandwidth of DVI and VGA on computers. By the time this is the mainstream connection we should have a need for the extra bandwidth this allows.

How long before we see this port on LCD monitors and Graphics cards.......

[Ray-- @ Jul 25th 2007 10:07AM]

I dont think you read the post very well... look again... it is an LCD... look at the res... 2,560 x 1,600 ... you know any 30 inch TVs that do that res?

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 25th 2007 10:36AM]

@Ray

Yes, I do know a 30 inch monitor that does 2560x1600...Dell's 30 incher, over DVI. Samsung's LCD is still incredibly amazing, just that the high resolution isn't a first.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-7175

[Ray-- @ Jul 25th 2007 10:47AM]

I SAID TV! OMG do people know how to comprehend written English?!

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 25th 2007 11:06AM]

Whatever. That's higher than a full HD signal's resolution, the only use for some resolution that high is as a monitor.

[nikster @ Jul 25th 2007 5:05AM]

DisplayPort == license free == good. Expect PC manufacturers built them into everything and make it a real-world standard in no time.

Compatibility with DVI / HDMI / VGA is also good - simple adapter plugs will do. And I was wondering why DVI plugs are so fraggin' huge - no reason it turns out, DisplayPort can deliver 2x the data at 1/4 the size.

[Ray-- @ Jul 25th 2007 10:12AM]

I agree... everyone is making it sound like its impossible to switch connectors/standards... its really not hard at all. A simple adapter (shipped with the card) is all you need. Did anyone have a hard time going from VGA to DVI?? Not me... any card I purchased that had DVI only came with an adapter... most still do. As soon as I can get DP on a monitor and graphics card I will...

[bjorn_ahlm @ Jul 25th 2007 5:19AM]

10-bit, yay.

[C?r @ Jul 25th 2007 6:25AM]

180-degree viewing angle?! Haven't we gone a little bit crazy?! If I sit perpendicular to the monitor, will I still see its screen?! Really?!

[John @ Jul 25th 2007 8:59AM]

It's when we start getting displays with 190-degree viewing angles that we should be getting worried... :)

[uagent @ Jul 25th 2007 7:57AM]

Well, it will at least serve one of its purposes, which is to eliminate proprietary connections inside laptops, which should bring down the cost of replacement LCD's for laptops, and ultimately, the price of LCD's in laptops period, since manufacturers can shop around for the best price for their spec.

[shockedboy @ Jul 25th 2007 9:17AM]

Is there anyone who still usingl 5.35 floopy disk?
Hm... Gee.... I haven't used it for 3 years.

[blueeyesm @ Jul 25th 2007 9:54AM]

Yes - esp. when old research data was stored on 5.25" floppies and the owner doesn't bother to take care of transferring it until he's told it's going away.

[Alex @ Jul 25th 2007 10:23AM]

If this means I can see even higher resolutions in my monitors soon, I'll take it.

[Ray-- @ Jul 25th 2007 10:46AM]

I SAID TV! OMG do people know how to comprehend written English?!

[Erwos @ Jul 25th 2007 2:41PM]

The DisplayPort spec allows DVI/HDMI pass-through, so this isn't an either-or situation.

I do hope that either HDMI or DP is what finally shoves VGA off of laptops. I honestly cannot understand why DVI isn't the standard these days.

[Jay @ Jul 25th 2007 7:27PM]

Dell's 30 inch does do 2560 by 1600, and it is Vesa mount ready. And unlike HDMI, Dual Link DVI isnt subject to DRM.

[steve @ Jul 25th 2007 10:17PM]

yeah no need for another connection. hdmi 1.3 can handle 10 Gigs a second. 1440p resolution. 120 Hz frame rate. CEC (consumer electronic control)and Dolby TrueHD (14 channel surround sound)and i believe upwards to some 48 trillion colors. there shouldnt need to be another connection for a very long time or ever really. even if they do start making tv's that can display right up to those specs. would anybody pay for a better picture than that? i mean the human eye can only see so much detail would people pay for a better picture quality that they cant really see?

[johnzilla @ Jul 26th 2007 3:07PM]

I don't think you understand the difference between running software applications on a monitor/desktop and watching a movie on a TV.

There are other things to do with a display screen besides watching a DVD.

[FXi @ Jul 26th 2007 6:37AM]

That brightness stinks. I wouldn't waste my money on a panel with those specs, even if the displayport is a great idea.

[letustalk @ Jul 28th 2007 9:40AM]

DVI and VGA's days numbered? I think you are being too optimistic.
It will take years before any new port being accepted by the average consumer, for example, most new laptops still come out with VGA connections, that alone guaranteed its life span of another 3 to 5 years.

[Iam4LSU @ Aug 6th 2007 9:59PM]

Honestly, there is a bit of misunderstanding and ignorance about the DisplayPort and the forces behind the push to implement it into the industry. I only see one singular advantage at this point and that is that the DisplayPort will lock into place and that is something I never understood why HDMI didn't implement to begin with. As a system integrator, any cable link that locks (e.g. a BNC connector) is welcome. Other than that one spec, there is really no need for an additional connector other than some manufacturers want a leg up on others. Otherwise, the use of HDMI costs only $0.04 per unit. That means that if you are using an amplifier and it has four HDMI in and two HDMI out, your cost is only $0.04 for the whole amplifier unit, not $0.24. I mean, seriously, if you're an electronics manufacturer and you sell 2 million units a year of anything with HDMI, your cost of licensing is $80,000.00 total. That's pretty miniscule. To learn more about this go to: http://hdmi.org/pdf/InterfaceOff_Feb2007.pdf