Dell 30" u3014 2560x1600 information emerges, release date feb/march 2013

[KentState]

The problem, aside from a horrific cost, is that DVI doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive its native resolution @ 120Hz. I think Display Port does but almost nobody uses that.

If you think about it, a current generation card is necessary to push that refresh rate on a 1600p monitor so it will come with display port by default. All of the HP laptops we buy at work have had display port and their IPS monitors have included it for the last year. To say that nobody uses it is not true.

 

[blackened23]

If you think about it, a current generation card is necessary to push that refresh rate on a 1600p monitor so it will come with display port by default. All of the HP laptops we buy at work have had display port and their IPS monitors have included it for the last year. To say that nobody uses it is not true.

I think it's a lot more common than many desktop users would think - The fact that nearly all apple products use it is pretty huge, not to mention that it's pin compatible with thunderbolt display. A lot of apple macbook users have displayport monitors to use their devices on.

Anyway, here's hoping to a 120hz 2560 or 4k display in 2013.

 

[tweakboy]

Long story short:

"light" AG coating
Won't be using the u3011 AG (BIG PLUS for home users, this translates into higher text sharpness than the u3011)
10-bit color, full adobe RGB color gamut
USB 3-0 and smart card reader
LED backlit
lower power consumption compared to u3011

http://www.computerbase.de/news/2013-01/weiteres-dokument-bestaetigt-30-zoll-monitor-dell-u3014/

Can't wait for the AT review where input lag is tested at a non native resolution

There is probably at least 5ms response time. That will cause laggy mouse in FPS games,, not instant like CRT or a 1ms LCD. gl

 

[BFG10K]

But practically everyone could use DisplayPort if they bought a cheap cable, no? I took a quick look at the bottom of the barrel models in each nVidia's Geforce model series starting from the newest, and I had to go all the way to 100 series before I found a card that did not feature DisplayPort.

AFAIK it’s not enough to just have Display Port. 120 Hz requires double the transmission bandwidth of 60 Hz. Or to put it another way, the GPU has to support a 4K resolution @ 60 Hz in order to be able to guarantee 2560x1600 @ 120 Hz.

On nVidia's side only the 6xx series supports 4K resolutions; even the previous flagship (GTX580) lists 2560x1600 as the maximum resolution, which means it likely can’t drive it @ 120 Hz.

Note that we’re talking about simple 2D desktop resolutions here, not 3D gaming, so the performance of the card is irrelevant.

2560x1600 @ 60 Hz has been available since 2005, but the amount of people that use it is miniscule to begin with. The amount of people that can add 120Hz on top of that is a drop in the bucket from that already miniscule amount.

 

[blackened23]

Yep, GPU is a big limiting factor. Interface wise, Displayport allows for bandwidth up to 21.6 Gb/s and 720MHz within specification, while DVI-D allows for a maximum of 9.9 Gb/s and 300MHz. 2560x1600x30bppx120hz is roughly 16 Gbs.

Video card is also a limiting factor as you mentioned; many older video cards aren't able to do it, although anything supporting 4k resolution @ 60hz will be able to do it. All of the current generation of GPUs are good to go as far as that is concerned.

 

[kevinsbane]

For what it's worth; there is no bandwidth limit in the DVI spec for dual link DVI. The specification states that anything abovge 165 mhz pixel clock (~2560x1440@42hz) must use a dual link DVI connection - but does not state a limit above that. 330mhz is not in the specification as a max pixel clock for dual link DVI (2560x1440@85hz). It's simply not in the spec. 165mhz pixel clock per link is a nice rule of thumb, but so long as the hardware is designed to take advantage of greater than that, it is not actually out of spec of DVI.

Not that DVI really handles it well at that point of course; my monitor runs 1440p@115hz, but it begins to start flickering at that point. I wouldn't want to run a 2560x1600@120hz using DVI. It's at the edge of the material ability for copper DVI cables.

 

[Black Octagon]

I've been digging around on this and it appears the reason for the 60hz limitation on 2560 IPS panels is indeed due to the lack of bandwidth of DVI-D. The panel produced by LG is capable of 120hz - and has for some time - but the DVI interface does not allow for it within specs; it does not have enough bandwidth while displayport does..

Not quite correct. Dual Link DVI IS capable of the bandwidth for 120Hz at 2560x1440, however this bandwidth also needs to be supported by the GPU, its drivers, and the PCB of the monitor.

A couple niche IPS monitors exist that are capable of 120Hz at this resolution (Overlord Tempest X270OC and Yamakasi Catleap Extreme 2B). Both include the same PCB. This PCB does not have a '120Hz mode' out of the box. It needs to be overclocked.

The last couple gen of graphics cards are capable of supporting such overclocks. The current drivers from both AMD and NVIDIA are not. Both companies have imposed an arbitrary 330Mhz pixel clock limit in the drivers, which prevents you from reaching the needed bandwidth. So those of us that own these monitors are using customised drivers in which the pixel clock limit is unlocked.

That leaves the cable and DVI connection. It's true that the bandwidth needed to drive 120hz@2560x1440 tests the limits of DVI, but it is possible. It's true that the latest versions of DisplayPort offer even better bandwidth than DVI, and I understand that Thunderbolt could possibly do it to. A more eloquent and detailed explanation is available here: http://120hz.net/showthread.php?1135-How-is-2560*1440-120hz-possible&p=17387&viewfull=1#post17387

What does this all mean? It probably IS possible for 2560x1440 monitors to offer 120Hz out of the box in the foreseeable future. However, a few things would need to happen before we'll see them from the big monitor manufacturers:
(1) A monitor PCB needs to be developed that comfortably supports the required bandwidth - I have no idea how feasible this is,
(2) Any monitor incorporating this fictitious PCB would need to have dual link DVI, or DisplayPort (or possibly Thunderbolt) among their inputs, and
(3) AMD and NVIDIA need to remove the pixel clock limits they currently impose in their drivers

How likely is this to happen in the coming few years? Who knows...

EDIT: kevinsbane beat me to it!

 

[blackened23]

Not quite correct. Dual Link DVI IS capable of the bandwidth for 120Hz at 2560x1440, however this bandwidth also needs to be supported by the GPU, its drivers, and the PCB of the monitor.

You are using anecdotal evidence of the 120hz catleaps as a backbone of your argument, however it isn't quite correct. 2560x1600x30bpp at 120hz requires 16Gbs. The maximum specification of DVI-D allows for 9.9Gbs. It does not have enough bandwidth. By contrast, 1920x1080x300 at 120hz requires roughly 8Gbs; DVI-D allows for 120hz at 1080p, but not 1440/1600p. On the pixel clock issue, that is also true as well but both AMD and nvidia allow for higher pixel clock rates through the driver. That is an easily fixed issue.

Furthermore, while some claim to have 120hz catleaps - it has been proven across various websites that anything above 75hz results in dropped frames. So while their video card control panel allows them to select 120hz, the limitations of DVI-D results in dropped frames.

So - again - DVI-D does not have enough bandwidth. Displayport does. Lastly, every 2560 IPS panel made in the past 3 years supports displayport - except, oddly enough, those crap korean panels. Ever wonder why they're so cheap and so many are defective? You get what you pay for.

 

[kevinsbane]

You are using anecdotal evidence of the 120hz catleaps as a backbone of your argument, however it isn't quite correct. 2560x1600x30bpp at 120hz requires 16Gbs. The maximum specification of DVI-D allows for 9.9Gbs. It does not have enough bandwidth. By contrast, 1920x1080x300 at 120hz requires roughly 8Gbs; DVI-D allows for 120hz at 1080p, but not 1440/1600p. On the pixel clock issue, that is also true as well but both AMD and nvidia allow for higher pixel clock rates through the driver. That is an easily fixed issue.

Furthermore, while some claim to have 120hz catleaps - it has been proven across various websites that anything above 75hz results in dropped frames. So while their video card control panel allows them to select 120hz, the limitations of DVI-D results in dropped frames.

So - again - DVI-D does not have enough bandwidth. Displayport does. Lastly, every 2560 IPS panel made in the past 3 years supports displayport - except, oddly enough, those crap korean panels. Ever wonder why they're so cheap and so many are defective? You get what you pay for.

The bolded portion is incorrect. There is no max bandwidth on dual link DVI in the DVI spec.

Secondly, it has been proven by various sites that multi-input catleaps/korean monitors in general skip frames above 60hz. It has also been conclusively proven that certain monitors, the Catleap "2B" variant and the Overlord Tempest OC monitors, can and do display up to 135 fps.

 

[BrightCandle]

I am far from an expert in this but taking a quick look at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface) it does seem like that its plausible that the maximum DVI-D dual link resolution would be 1920x1200x24@120.

My reasoning for this is that single link DVI-D is limited to 1920x1200x24@60 Hz. Dual link being double could likely carry 120Hz of the same resolution.

The actual maximum resolution (widescreen) @ 60hz on a single link is 2,098 × 1,311, there are no standard resolutions between 1920x1200 and that slightly increased resolution.

Now with Catleap 2B's they do seem to have overclocked the cables past that limit quite considerably such that instead of being limited to 2.75 Mpixels at 120Hz they are 3.686 Mpixels at 120Hz. That is quite an overclock.

Thus I doubt we'll see any DVI-D 120hz monitors beyond the 1080p ones we see today ( I still hold out for 24" 1920x1200 but I doubt it'll happen). Displayport should usher in more high resolutions and higher hz but its far from certain when that change on desktop will happen decisively. I get a lot more 2x DVI ports on a GeForce 680 and only 1xDisplayPort. I can't thus run surround on DP at all.

 

[blackened23]

The bolded portion is incorrect. There is no max bandwidth on dual link DVI in the DVI spec.

Secondly, it has been proven by various sites that multi-input catleaps/korean monitors in general skip frames above 60hz. It has also been conclusively proven that certain monitors, the Catleap "2B" variant and the Overlord Tempest OC monitors, can and do display up to 135 fps.

I just double checked and you are indeed correct (only for DVI-DL), however this is still questionable because the bandwidth becomes limited by the copper interconnects used within the cable itself and the number of pins available. That's pretty ambiguous and i'd imagine that some ports/connections wouldn't allow it. Also, DVI is a dead standard in terms of no governing body existing to solidify standards or improving it - DVI will stay the way it is; whereas DP and HDMI are both governed by VESA and manufacturers, respectively.

 

[kevinsbane]

I just double checked and you are indeed correct (only for DVI-DL), however this is still questionable because the bandwidth becomes limited by the copper interconnects used within the cable itself and the number of pins available. That's pretty ambiguous and i'd imagine that some ports/connections wouldn't allow it. Also, DVI is a dead standard in terms of no governing body existing to solidify standards or improving it - DVI will stay the way it is; whereas DP and HDMI are both governed by VESA and manufacturers, respectively.

DVI is definitely a dead standard. The standards body last met in 2001 and has since disbanded! That makes it older than Windows XP >.> DisplayPort hopefully will gain a lot of traction, especially since almost all the quality 1440p+ monitors do not run HDMI 1.4 ports (That and my laptop has DisplayPort)

My reasoning for this is that single link DVI-D is limited to 1920x1200x24@60 Hz. Dual link being double could likely carry 120Hz of the same resolution.

The 165 pixel clock mhz limitation (~2560x1440p@42hz) of Single link DVI is not an upper bound of the protocol itself. It is a threshold that above which you must use dual link DVI in order to be considered "in-spec".

 

[Black Octagon]

Two more points from me:

1) The frame skipping Catleap Multi was a very specific batch. The manufacturer, Witech, cottoned on to the fact that eBay was going ape shit crazy for overclockable Catleaps, and released this Multi and specifically allowed the eBay sellers to market them as overclockable. The same software that was used to pick up the frame skipping can be used on any monitor. It has been used to verify that the Catleap Extreme 2B and Overlord Tempest X270OC do actually output 120Hz when overclocked to that refresh rate. I myself have a Tempest at 120Hz and it is every bit as smooth as the native 120Hz Samsung 950D next to it.

2) Dual Link DVI is indeed capable of the bandwidth needed for 120Hz at this resolution - again, IF your monitor, graphics card, drivers, monitor PCB and DVI cable all support it. Nonetheless, we are quibbling about DVI in this thread. The point is that Tempest OC and Catleap 2B owners are operating on the fringes of what DVI can handle. If a monitor manufacturer were to specifically design a 2560x1440 monitor that operates at 120Hz out of the box, it's all but obvious that they would use DisplayPort, or possibly Thunderbolt...

 

[AdamK47]

Will it use full array back lit LEDs, or will it be edge lit? It better be full array.

 

[blackened23]

Will it use full array back lit LEDs, or will it be edge lit? It better be full array.

From what i've read, it isn't edge lit unlike the u3011.

 

[tweakboy]

Watch out for laggy mouse. Unless you turn vsync off and watch the textures ripping and tearing...... and That is the problem with IPS. 7ms to up to 15ms latency......

ghosting, image tearing with vsync off, image blur , anyhow gl

 

[DonGateley]

Any indication whether or not it will have an MHL input? Their Ophelia device requires it and they don't currently have any monitors with it so one would hope...

 

[ViRGE]

Any indication whether or not it will have an MHL input? Their Ophelia device requires it and they don't currently have any monitors with it so one would hope...

I wouldn't count on it. MHL doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive the monitor at its native resolution, so why bother?

 

[moonbogg]

4K 30"ers coming? Why does that not surprise me. It won't be long now.

 

[DonGateley]

I wouldn't count on it. MHL doesn't have enough bandwidth to drive the monitor at its native resolution, so why bother?

Is it less than HDMI? If so, I wonder why a new standard would be lower bandwidth than an older one.

It would be sorta embarrassing if Ophelia (given that it sees the light of day) would have no place in their own product lineup.

 

[ViRGE]

Is it less than HDMI? If so, I wonder why a new standard would be lower bandwidth than an older one.

It would be sorta embarrassing if Ophelia (given that it sees the light of day) would have no place in their own product lineup.

MHL is equivalent to HDMI 1.3. 1920x1080 at 60fps. HDMI can at least slide since there are a fair number of computers (and game consoles) where HDMI is the only option (such as Ultrabooks). MHL doesn't have that kind of leverage though.

 

[RussianSensation]

4K 30"ers coming? Why does that not surprise me. It won't be long now.

Sharp 32 incher for $5.5K.

The best part about 4K becoming the next HDTV standard is PC monitor manufacturers won't be able to artificially keep prices high like they did with 30 inch 1600P screen for almost a decade because PC gamers could just go out and buy a 32-40 inch 4K TV at BestBuy.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Sharp 32 incher for $5.5K.

The best part about 4K becoming the next HDTV standard is PC monitor manufacturers won't be able to artificially keep prices high like they did with 30 inch 1600P screen for almost a decade because PC gamers could just go out and buy a 32-40 inch 4K TV at BestBuy.

Did you ever try compare a monitor and TV side by side?

 

[Ferzerp]

Did you ever try compare a monitor and TV side by side?

Granted, but the panel is the expensive part, and at this point, the panels are often the same. It's the electronic bits that make (low end) TVs poor monitors. I've seen some higher end ones that work fine, when set up for it, but they're also huge, and so the pixels are huge.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Granted, but the panel is the expensive part, and at this point, the panels are often the same. It's the electronic bits that make (low end) TVs poor monitors. I've seen some higher end ones that work fine, when set up for it, but they're also huge, and so the pixels are huge.

Is my Samsung UE55ES7005 lowend?