1440p IPS and Displayport Only - Interest?

[PrincessFrosty]

No, I support having as many connections as possible for convenience.

Adding DP doesn't require removing DVI, there's no reason not to expect support for both. 120hz is nice but the limitations of 1440/1600 panels at 120hz isn't caused by cable bandwidth alone...

 

[3DVagabond]

No, I support having as many connections as possible for convenience.

Adding DP doesn't require removing DVI, there's no reason not to expect support for both. 120hz is nice but the limitations of 1440/1600 panels at 120hz isn't caused by cable bandwidth alone...

I agree that there isn't any reason to only have one connection (small cost savings?). Out of curiosity though, If you could only have 1 type of connection, what would you want?

 

[Black Octagon]

If I could have only one? Thunderbolt.

But only when it's supported by a wide array of sources

Also worth bearing in mind that HDMI v2.0 is apparently just around the corner and will have enough bandwidth for 4K at 60hz. I know it comes with that annoying licensing fee, but the reality is that it's probably the most widely supported interface out they're right now. So if I can't have my TB dream, it would probably be HDMI 2.0

 

[jackstar7]

The reason to only have one connection is to minimize need for extra processing elements in the monitor itself that will introduce lag. It's why the DVI-only models of the 1440p monitors have lower lag than those with multi-inputs.

 

[yacoub]

I'm fine with DP only. 120Hz would be nice. Quality panel (color gamut, low lag/latency, etc) and quality backlight are just as important though.

Also, at 1440p are we talking 24"? 27"? What size?

 

[Black Octagon]

27 inches

 

[Subyman]

I'd much rather have DP only than DVI only.

 

[tynopik]

it depends on how much savings i get vs a more full-feature monitor

if it saves $10, no thanks
if it saves $100, sign me up

 

[Chaoticlusts]

The idea of sacrificing extra ports for lower cost/increased functionality sounds great to me, although I'd be more enticed by a 1600p. That being said if the price was right I would definitely consider it, still really wanting a <27" with >1200p

*edit* derpy derp part of my post was about preferring IPS to TN I missed the damn title

 

[KingFatty]

So how much additional money would you spend to add the following ports to this hypothetical dp-only display:
1) VGA
2) DL-DVI
3) HDMI

Or, how much money could someone pay you to let them remove those ports from your existing display?

 

[UNhooked]

Count me in, although a 1600p would be more awesome!

 

[jackstar7]

So how much additional money would you spend to add the following ports to this hypothetical dp-only display:
1) VGA
2) DL-DVI
3) HDMI

Or, how much money could someone pay you to let them remove those ports from your existing display?

What is the point of your questions?

Right now, DVI-only 1440p monitors have low input lag. The additional ports and required scalar add input lag. The point of the thread is to check if people have interest in Displayport-only to keep low lag and ditch the need for dual-link DVI port.

 

[Atreidin]

I love DP. I think there might be a day of the week dedicated to DP on one of the 4chan boards.

Warning issued for threadcrapping.
-- stahlhart

Edit:Sorry for the off-color joke. I'll try to be more serious from now on.

 

[KingFatty]

What is the point of your questions?

Right now, DVI-only 1440p monitors have low input lag. The additional ports and required scalar add input lag. The point of the thread is to check if people have interest in Displayport-only to keep low lag and ditch the need for dual-link DVI port.

I was getting at whether there is a demand-side incentive to create a display lacking those ports, and if so, does it align with the supply-side cost tradeoffs?

So, let's say people are so enamored with their DL-DVI ports that they are very unwilling to give them up, unless you discount the cost of the display by $50. So the question is, if someone can come up with a display having "only" a displayport connection, can it be produced at $50 less to satisfy the reduced demand for it?

As a data point, keep in mind there has already been displayport-only displays. One example was made by HP and featured right here on Anandtech in the Hot Deals section. The display was discounted so much, and you have to wonder, is the discount a result of there being very little demand for displayport, so that the cost had to come down so much that it was not worth making it?

Similar analysis would be helpful for all ports. For myself, I'm happy to get a displayport-only display, so I would give up the other ports for maybe $20. In other words, I'm willing to pay $20 more for a monitor such as Microcenter's Auria 1440p that has all ports, compared to getting your hypothetical displayport-only version.

The question for your supplier is, can he create this type of display, and save more than $20 by omitting the circuitry for the other ports? Also, is there some enhanced performance that would make it better than a DVI-DL where there is reduced lag?

I guess you could also collect data from ebay etc. and examine the market-determined pricing for 1440p monitors that are DVI-DL only, vs. those with all the ports. What is the average price difference there, showing what people are willing to accept as a lower price to sacrifice all other ports except DVI-DL? I bet it would be similar difference in price for a dp-only version, but you'd have to discount even further because there would be slightly less demand for people who don't want or don't have dp support.

 

[tynopik]

What is the point of your questions?

Right now, DVI-only 1440p monitors have low input lag. The additional ports and required scalar add input lag. The point of the thread is to check if people have interest in Displayport-only to keep low lag and ditch the need for dual-link DVI port.

so adding the other ports adds lag even when not using those ports?

if that's the case, how about some intelligent design that only adds lag when required?

 

[jackstar7]

so adding the other ports adds lag even when not using those ports?

if that's the case, how about some intelligent design that only adds lag when required?

I don't think physics allows the addition of scalar and other components without introducing lag. This is not an area of my expertise though.

 

[HurleyBird]

Sounds good to me!

 

[tynopik]

I don't think physics allows the addition of scalar and other components without introducing lag. This is not an area of my expertise though.

it should be easy enough to bypass the scaler if it isn't needed

 

[zephyrprime]

DP only is fine with me since everything is moving in that direction anyway.

 

[Throckmorton]

IMO it makes sense because someone interested in one of those screens is not going to use HDMI at all, and is more likely to have a DP output than a DVI one.

 

[bryanW1995]

Yeah, I would. I'd advocate for the manufacturer to include a DP cable, however - because a lot of DP cables aren't 100% VESA compliant. This leads to a lot of anomalies such as the monitor going into power saving mode on a warm reboot, and stuff of that nature. But it doesn't happen with compliant 1.2 cables.

Anyway, long story short - yes. I'd prefer the manufacturer to bundle one, though, which is what Dell does with their ultrasharps. However, another counter-point is that many pre-2008 video cards (and i'm sure there are a lot out there) do not have displayport. Additionally, many ultrabooks and portables do not have displayport - which would make a good argument for multi-inputs.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I just checked to make sure that my 7970 has dp. It does, so I'd be fine with a DP only monitor!

 

[Black Octagon]

I was getting at whether there is a demand-side incentive to create a display lacking those ports, and if so, does it align with the supply-side cost tradeoffs?

So, let's say people are so enamored with their DL-DVI ports that they are very unwilling to give them up, unless you discount the cost of the display by $50. So the question is, if someone can come up with a display having "only" a displayport connection, can it be produced at $50 less to satisfy the reduced demand for it?

(snip)

The question for your supplier is, can he create this type of display, and save more than $20 by omitting the circuitry for the other ports? Also, is there some enhanced performance that would make it better than a DVI-DL where there is reduced lag?

As I understand it, it's not so simple as just adding or subtracting a port and then figuring out what the difference in price of the PORT is. You also need your panel and timing controller to be compatible with those additional ports. The controller in the DVI-only monitors referred to in the OP are (if memory serves correct) only compatible with 1 very specific type of 1440p IPS panel, so to add DP or swap DVI for DP requires you to also change panel.

Since the panel is by far the most expensive component of monitors in this size and resolution range, the final monitor price may be affected far more by the changes to this component rather than by the cost of the port or the cost of the 'circuitry' to which you refer...

 

[KingFatty]

You mention the controller in the DVI-only monitors being compatible with the specific panel.

I would imagine a similar type of controller would be the item in question that would enable the displayport-only monitors in the OP?

So you try to figure out what is the demand for it, and can you make that controller (that would be well-suited to these type of inexpensive panels, either the LG IPS ones or the Samsung PLS ones) and bundle it with the panel to get a cheap monitor?

It would be interesting to see if a displayport-only controller could be cheaper than a DVI-only controller (assuming both are interchangeable with the same panel).

 

[jiffylube1024]

I'd be fine with DP-only if the price was competitive. If you're going to do any gaming on that monitor at all (which a lot of us do), a video card with onboard DP or mini DP is pretty much an industry standard now. I've had DP ports on my video card for 2-3 years now... The DP cable is also easier to work with than DL DVI.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I agree that there isn't any reason to only have one connection (small cost savings?). Out of curiosity though, If you could only have 1 type of connection, what would you want?

I'd rather have the connection that firstly doesn't limit the intended ability of the monitor, and secondly is the most commonly found on cards/devices.

If the panel is say capable of 120hz @ 1440p then I'd most certainly want the connection to support that bandwidth, and that would require something like HDMI 1.4+ or Display port (I believe?).

But in reality we don't have those panels yet because we don't have IPS panels at 120hz (i'm going to ignore these dodgy overclocked korean panels or whatever that nonsense is), so I'd probably shoot for something like DL-DVI which is widely supported.

This is where I differ from some, in that I recognize the limitations we have for fast and large panels (120hz @ 1440p/1600p) is not just a connector bandwidth issue, 1440p and 1600p almost always implies IPS and that technology just isn't there when it comes to high refresh rates, not least because the pixel response times are fairly poor.

Connection prices for a few extra connectors on an already expensive 1440p or 1600p panel is nearly irrelevant.