High Res external display using HDMI/VGA

[ABramley]

Hi all,

Long time reader, 1st time poster - hopefully you can help!

I'm changing career and downsizing all of my computer gear. I used to work in photography and imaging and as such I have a very nice NEC Spectraview 27" screen (same as the PA271) which I ran off a desktop using a ATI Firepro v4800 on display port. It ran at 2560 x 1440 and in 10 bit colour, which was all great!

I'm now getting rid of that desktop, and I've bought an Asus U500V laptop to replace it, which is great with one exception - the outputs. From the specs below:

http://zenbook.asus.com/zenbook/

I believed it had HDMI 1.4 which apparently supports some pretty big resolutions:

http://uk.asus.com/Notebooks/Features/HDMI_14

My screen features 2x DVI-I and displayport inputs, so I purchased an HDMI -> DVI Dual Link adapter to make the connection. Unfortunately the max true res seems to be either 1920 x 1080 or 1600 x 1200. I can set up a custom 2560 x 1440 resolution in the Nvidia display driver, but although it's displaying the screen estate of a 2560x1440 display, it's obviously just up-scaling from smaller resolutions - the icons and text don't look anywhere near as crisp as when it's driven by a proper connection from my desktop.

Moving on from here, I guess I've got 3 questions:

1) Is there going to be any way to get my Asus to output true 2560x1440 from either its HDMI 1.4 connection?

2) Is there any way to get my Asus to output true 2560x1440 from its mini-vga connection that will be accepted by my monitor, bearing in mind that VGA is analogue and all my monitor's inputs are digital?

3) Could I use some kind of external graphics card with a DVI or displayport output to link to my monitor? Not too worried about gaming performance - I only want to output onto the screen for photoshop, lightroom, firefox and work.

4) Am I better selling my NEC screen and replacing it with something with an HDMI input? If so, what's the best res I can get using HDMI? I don't need the 27" screen anymore so I'd be really happy with some kind of 24" 1920x1200 setup. HDMI 1.4 says I should easily be able to output this from my laptop - is that actually the case?

Thanks for your help everyone!!!

 

[Insert_Nickname]

You're out of luck, unfortunately. If you check the specs on your Zenbook it says HDMI 1.4 (1080p Support). Also HDMI 1.4 can do high resolutions, but only at 30p.

You'll need a Displayport equipped laptop to drive that monitor.

 

[ABramley]

ah heck - so I've not got true HDMI 1.4 - only HDMI artificially limited to 1080p resolution?

What about something like this:

http://www.av-experts.co.uk/nec-ea244wmi-1.html

which seems to support 1920X1200 with HDMI input - same story - artificially limited by the Asus HDMI implementation?

 

[ABramley]

Or actually - that monitor seems to support VGA - any issues running it at full res using the VGA output?

 

[kevinsbane]

Hi all,

Long time reader, 1st time poster - hopefully you can help!

I'm changing career and downsizing all of my computer gear. I used to work in photography and imaging and as such I have a very nice NEC Spectraview 27" screen (same as the PA271) which I ran off a desktop using a ATI Firepro v4800 on display port. It ran at 2560 x 1440 and in 10 bit colour, which was all great!

I'm now getting rid of that desktop, and I've bought an Asus U500V laptop to replace it, which is great with one exception - the outputs. From the specs below:

http://zenbook.asus.com/zenbook/

I believed it had HDMI 1.4 which apparently supports some pretty big resolutions:

http://uk.asus.com/Notebooks/Features/HDMI_14

My screen features 2x DVI-I and displayport inputs, so I purchased an HDMI -> DVI Dual Link adapter to make the connection. Unfortunately the max true res seems to be either 1920 x 1080 or 1600 x 1200. I can set up a custom 2560 x 1440 resolution in the Nvidia display driver, but although it's displaying the screen estate of a 2560x1440 display, it's obviously just up-scaling from smaller resolutions - the icons and text don't look anywhere near as crisp as when it's driven by a proper connection from my desktop.

Moving on from here, I guess I've got 3 questions:

1) Is there going to be any way to get my Asus to output true 2560x1440 from either its HDMI 1.4 connection?

2) Is there any way to get my Asus to output true 2560x1440 from its mini-vga connection that will be accepted by my monitor, bearing in mind that VGA is analogue and all my monitor's inputs are digital?

3) Could I use some kind of external graphics card with a DVI or displayport output to link to my monitor? Not too worried about gaming performance - I only want to output onto the screen for photoshop, lightroom, firefox and work.

4) Am I better selling my NEC screen and replacing it with something with an HDMI input? If so, what's the best res I can get using HDMI? I don't need the 27" screen anymore so I'd be really happy with some kind of 24" 1920x1200 setup. HDMI 1.4 says I should easily be able to output this from my laptop - is that actually the case?

Thanks for your help everyone!!!

You're screwed with your current screen.

HDMI does not convert to DL-DVI without a $100+ converter.

1. You may be able to output a custom resolution of 1440p @ 42hz using a standard HDMI->DVI converter. As long as it's not for gaming/video, you should be fine then.
2. Maybe. That would be out of spec for VGA though.
3. I wouldn't count on it.
4. Yes, you can output 1920x1200 via HDMI. Actually, you can output 1440p@60hz via HDMI too, if you get a monitor that supports HDMI 1.4 (they're quite rare).

Whatever you choose, you lose 10bit colour.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

ah heck - so I've not got true HDMI 1.4 - only HDMI artificially limited to 1080p resolution?

What about something like this:

http://www.av-experts.co.uk/nec-ea244wmi-1.html

which seems to support 1920X1200 with HDMI input - same story - artificially limited by the Asus HDMI implementation?

Oh, no. HDMI 1.4 can do 2160p@30Hz, but only if BOTH (GFX+screen) devices support 1.4, otherwise your limited to single-link DVI bandwidth (1920x1200@60Hz). As kevinsbane wrote HDMI 1.4 supporting monitors are quite rare. Without getting too technical a HDMI connection only has one set of DVI signalling connections, where dual-link DVI has two sets. What HDMI 1.4 does is running that one set at higher frequencies to transmit higher resolutions.

HDMI is backwards compatible, so if you stay below 1920x1200, you should be fine.

 

[ABramley]

Cool - so not as bad as I feared. I was pretty worried that HDMI in the state I had it was limited to 1080p max.

I'd be completely happy with a 24inch 1920x1200 IPS screen and there's quite a few on the market for reasonable prices. I'll sell the Spectraview - was considering it anyway as I'm starting to travel a lot for work and it's a big piece of kit, not to mention the fact that I'm not using its features anymore - and pick up something cheaper!

Just to confirm one more time - I'd be fine running that monitor, or one like it, over my HDMI output at native res (1920x1200)?

Thanks for your help

 

[blackened23]

You won't be able to use either VGA or HDMI for anything above 1080/1200p.

Technically, HDMI 1.4A allows for it BUT both the adapter and monitors in question have to support it, and I can tell you from direct experience that no combination supports this. You WILL NOT get 2560x1440/1600 with HDMI. VGA maxes out at 2048x1536, so VGA is also a no go. Regardless of what the HDMI specification states, there are a lot of other intricacies in terms of making it work, which no combinations actually support. It is designed for HDTV sound and 1080p, nothing more nothing less so that is what all end-user designs are based on. I've tried this on many mHDMI ultrabooks. It won't work.

Additionally, converters also won't work I believe. I don't have extensive experience on this, but based on anecdotal evidence and first hand accounts that I've read from others - it bases the signal from the original source (which is obviously VGA or HDMI) and the electrical signal cannot be enhanced beyond what the source is. So you're stuck with the lower resolution. This is a major issue with a lot of 2012 ultrabooks, and as I mentioned I have experience with this. It pissed me off enough to just say screw it and get a macbook pro retina instead - which has mini displayport. That's what you want, an ultrabook with mini DP - if you're still in any sort of return window, try to return your ultrabook in favor of a different model with mini DP/DP. The unfortunate thing here is that the intel 2012 reference ultrabook spec calls for mini HDMI with no support for greater than 1080/1200p. So there are very, very few ultrabooks with mini DP, although there are 3 that I have heard of. Go for one of those.

 

[ABramley]

Sorry - I've accepted that the 27" 2560x1440 is unobtainable with this laptop. I had it earmarked for sale anyway - now I'm no longer using its full featureset it's a lot of overkill for a 2nd screen.

I'm now interested in replacing it with a 24" 1920x1200 screen with HDMI and VGA inputs.

If VGA supports up to 2048x1536, I should have no problems running a 1920x1200 screen on that, even if my HDMI out only goes up to 1080p... right?

 

[blackened23]

Sorry - I've accepted that the 27" 2560x1440 is unobtainable with this laptop. I had it earmarked for sale anyway - now I'm no longer using its full featureset it's a lot of overkill for a 2nd screen.

I'm now interested in replacing it with a 24" 1920x1200 screen with HDMI and VGA inputs.

If VGA supports up to 2048x1536, I should have no problems running a 1920x1200 screen on that, even if my HDMI out only goes up to 1080p... right?

Yeah, 1080p works fine with VGA.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

If you're selling the Ultrabook why not just get one with DisplayPort on it? Then you can use your monitor or at least get a new E-IPS 1440p monitor for much cheaper (if you don't want photo reproduction units anymore)

 

[ABramley]

I'm selling the desktop, the ultrabook is its replacement. The ultrabook is staying

 

[blackened23]

Yeah, 1080p works fine with VGA.

I meant to say 1200p here, whoops.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Well if you're still interested, have you considered something like the Startech USB 3.0 to Display Port adapter, USB32DPPRO? It uses DisplayLink's 3500 IC that has been praised due to its Adaptive Compression technology that allows DisplayPort bandwidth within the 5Gbps limitation of USB 3.0

Should be good for all but twitch gamers (who might be bothered by the latency). They're expensive ($92 on Newegg), but that might be a route to consider to maintain your high resolution. You'll still lose 10 bit.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Well if you're still interested, have you considered something like the Startech USB 3.0 to Display Port adapter, USB32DPPRO? It uses DisplayLink's 3500 IC that has been praised due to its Adaptive Compression technology that allows DisplayPort bandwidth within the 5Gbps limitation of USB 3.0

Should be good for all but twitch gamers (who might be bothered by the latency). They're expensive ($92 on Newegg), but that might be a route to consider to maintain your high resolution. You'll still lose 10 bit.

Wasn't aware they made something like that yet. Thanks for the heads-up, it might come in handy for situations like this.

 

[kevinsbane]

Well if you're still interested, have you considered something like the Startech USB 3.0 to Display Port adapter, USB32DPPRO? It uses DisplayLink's 3500 IC that has been praised due to its Adaptive Compression technology that allows DisplayPort bandwidth within the 5Gbps limitation of USB 3.0

Should be good for all but twitch gamers (who might be bothered by the latency). They're expensive ($92 on Newegg), but that might be a route to consider to maintain your high resolution. You'll still lose 10 bit.

If it's anything like the USB2 versions, it'll have ridiculously bad refresh rates to the point where you lose a lot of the experience just watching Youtube (you drop like every other frame). Good for work, bad for media and gaming.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

If it's anything like the USB2 versions, it'll have ridiculously bad refresh rates to the point where you lose a lot of the experience just watching Youtube (you drop like every other frame). Good for work, bad for media and gaming.

It's not You're comparing a ideal 480Mbps interface (which in reality didn't come close), with no compression or awful JPEG compression, with a 5Gbps interface (that gets pretty darn close to this theoretical) with state-of-the-art adaptive compression ASICs. These new DisplayLink USB 3.0 adapters are a far different beast from the generic USB 2.0 adapters of the past

 

[kevinsbane]

It's not You're comparing a ideal 480Mbps interface (which in reality didn't come close), with no compression or awful JPEG compression, with a 5Gbps interface (that gets pretty darn close to this theoretical) with state-of-the-art adaptive compression ASICs. These new DisplayLink USB 3.0 adapters are a far different beast from the generic USB 2.0 adapters of the past

Hopefully that would be the case, as currently, reviews on Amazon of the USB3 version of this are not promising (when they speak of video, all of them universally call them terrible for video)

 

[ABramley]

External GFX cards are an interesting option - I asked about these in my original post as I knew they'd existed before.

Would love for someone to review one of these - a lot of the reviews complaining about video seem to be connecting a USB3 adapter by USB2, and I can't see anyone running one of these at a lower res specifically for video. E.g. run it at 2560x1440 for the low refresh rate, easy stuff, and then downres to say 1080p for watching a film. That would suit my usage very nicely.

There also seem to be a few other brands kicking around - there's a Lenovo one, and the brand I was thinking about originally is Matrox if they're still going.

Would love for one of the tech sites to get hold of these and give them a real review - any chance of this happening?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Hopefully that would be the case, as currently, reviews on Amazon of the USB3 version of this are not promising (when they speak of video, all of them universally call them terrible for video)

I did not find many posts of this, but I did see a few. I am inclined to believe this leans towards inadequate GPU offload support (and a weak processor), or bugs that were blamed on the adapter. Such as Windows only allowing USB 2.0 operation (which is a Windows install problem or Laptop problem). Or not working with OSX (which OSX needed an update to fix their terrible first launch of USB 3.0, again, that's an OS problem).

I also saw a lot of mixing of products in the reviews that make me fear that some are using the old first generation USB 2.0 devices, instead of the DisplayLink 3000 series.

If its any help, there is a review out there for the Targus Display Link 3100 adapter (single link DVI and HDMI) adapter here, and the person had absolutely no troubles streaming 1080p videos when using USB 3.0. Everything USB Review.

It's interesting to note that in that review, they didn't even have trouble playing games on it, but 1440p is quite a few more pixels than 1080p so I wouldn't know! (I can't play any games on that resolution because I only have an old AMD 5770).

 

[thecoolnessrune]

External GFX cards are an interesting option - I asked about these in my original post as I knew they'd existed before.

Would love for someone to review one of these - a lot of the reviews complaining about video seem to be connecting a USB3 adapter by USB2, and I can't see anyone running one of these at a lower res specifically for video. E.g. run it at 2560x1440 for the low refresh rate, easy stuff, and then downres to say 1080p for watching a film. That would suit my usage very nicely.

There also seem to be a few other brands kicking around - there's a Lenovo one, and the brand I was thinking about originally is Matrox if they're still going.

Would love for one of the tech sites to get hold of these and give them a real review - any chance of this happening?

Let me just go ahead and make sure that its made clear that these are not graphics cards None of these adapters have any sort of polygon rendering hardware in them. Rather, these DisplayLink adapters are ASICs that create a pipe host's CPU and GPU to render graphics, provide USB connections, and gigabit ethernet interfaces, and compress all that traffic into a USB 3.0 interface and transmit it. These packets are then expanded and separated on the other side by the DisplayLink ASIC. No rendering is taking place anywhere except on the GPU (and CPU depending on what GPU you have and the processes that can be offloaded onto it). At really high resolutions a dual core processor is a must, and suffice it to say, if your processor is already heavily loaded in an application, it won't be any better running one of these adapters.

 

[ABramley]

Cool - that's a positive review.

Once again, with a workaround device like this, I'm completely happy to work around its own foibles. If that means full-res on the desktop and dropping to 'only' 1080p for watching a film from the sofa, that's great! I'll probably even knock together a shortcut to swap the res for me.

The only problem with that one is that it doesn't do full res - no displayport and only single link dvi, which is no better than running an HDMI->DVI cable to my current screen. Eagerly awaiting a similar quality review of one of the adaptors that does do full res!

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Yeah I had looked around and hadn't seen anything myself. That being said it's the same chipset and same firmware and 1 model higher of the same ASIC so the only outlier is what happens when the resolution is cranked that high. I'm guessing as long as the processor is up to snuff then it's all good

 

[Peter Nixeus]

Hi OP,

This is a shot in the dark assuming your zenbook has descrete graphics Nvidia 650m and a mini VGA (D-SUB) output.

We have had some users able to get 2560x1440 on our monitors with the laptop's VGA output to the monitor's vga input - weird, but they claimed they got it to work with our monitors... the key component here was that their laptops had a descrete card like yours... maybe you should give it a shot... doesn't hurt, but only thing is that it is an analogue signal and not digital so the cable has to be a good quality.

 

[ABramley]

So I've had a good hunt around. The Matrox solutions look really nice, but only go up to 1200 on the vertical - no better than my current HDMI -> DVI cable.

Peter - interesting, but my monitor doesn't have a VGA input!

So, I've got a Startech adapter on order. The company reckons it won't work because apparantly the Zenbook's 3USB ports are only actually 1, shared USB port with 3 sockets, and may even be shared by other internal components. They reckon I won't even get normal use out of it at 2560x1440, let alone video at 1080p. However, I've got 7 days to return it, so worth a go. Failing that, I guess the screen goes on ebay and I downsize.

Cheers all!