1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Toshiba Hints at 22-inch LCD Monitor with 3840x2400 QUXGA-W Native Resolution

Discussion in 'News' started by malware, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. malware New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,476 (1.59/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Toshiba has announced a 22.2" widescreen super high-resolution liquid crystal display capable of a QUXGA-W or 3840x2400 native resolution. Unfortunately, other specs look quite bad for an LCD display as it features 235cd/m2 brightness, 300:1 contrast ratio, and 120/100-degrees viewing angle. Requiring 130W of power and dedicated PCI video card which costs ¥312,000 ($2,783), Toshiba's new LCD monitor will be released in the second quarter of 2008 and will cost ¥2,079,000 or $17.500.

    Specifications:
    • Display Dimensions: 478.1mm (W) x 298.8mm (H)
    • Screen size: 56.4cm (22.2)
    • Resolution: 3,840 x 2,400
    • Pixel pitch: 0.1245mm x 0.1245mm
    • Brightness: 235cd / m 2 (typ)
    • Contrast: 300:1 (typ)
    • Color: 1677 million colors
    • View angle: Left and right 120 degrees (+ / - 60), up-and-down 100 (+40 degrees, -60 degrees)
    • Dimensions: 567mm (W) x maximum of 524 mm (H) x 220mm (D) and height adjustment feature (61.5 mm)
    • Power consumption: 130W (max)
    • Interface: DVI-D (24-pin) 2ch
    • Cable length: 3.0m (detachable)
    Source: Engadget
  2. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,202 (4.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    haha yea, those are a long way from making it to the consumer level.
  3. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,271 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    597
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    Yeech, the QUXGA-W monitors released a few years ago (IBM, Viewsonic, and one other) were only $5K-$8K.

    Not listed here for the Toshiba, but the other models had a response time of 35ms - 50ms. Even if you could line up 4 1GB cards for Quad CrossFire, the response time is a killer.
  4. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,481 (1.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    473
    Location:
    University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine
    holy schintzel
    graphics cards only go up to 2560x1600 lol
  5. Casheti

    Casheti New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    4,422 (1.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    29
    I can't even play 1080p movies on my PC. They lag..
  6. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,271 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    597
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    The key is, at a certain Hz.

    Drop the Hz and you can raise the resolution.
  7. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    I suppose so. But with that high of a response, low brightness and what not, the resolutions just isnt worth it. Besides, whoever thinks 2500X1600 isnt high enougha resolution for games and movies, needs to be shot.
  8. Ripper3

    Ripper3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,386 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    117
    Location:
    London, England
    Yeah, I don't think response times are a bother for professionals. They're not being paid to sit on their asses and play games or watch movies, so the benefits of low response rates are minimal to none to them.

    I think 1920x1200 is a nice res for gaming. Past that, the difference is only the image won't look stretched on your expensive 30" TFT :p
    Plus, more people can afford 24" TFTs than can afford 30"ers, so 2560x1600 is really kind of useless atm to most.

    Still, would be interesting to use this res, and the DPI is brilliant, the images would be crystal clear. I compared my 13.3" 1280x800 laptop's monitor to my friend's 15.4" 1280x800, and the image quality was nicer on the 13.3", and the high DPI on 15" and 17" laptop monitors at high resolutions (like the 1600x1200 and especially 1920x1200 resolutions on some professional laptops) make them look amazing, and crystal clear. I can only imagine how good that 22"er must look.
    Hella eye-strain though.
  9. pinnocchio New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    T221 is a great monitor......while not ideal for you high frame rate FPS type games it's brilliant for Flight Simulator and such like.

    And you can run it off one video card......most of the Quadro FX cards can run it by using both of the DVI headers.

    The DG05 version of the T221 has an external adapter that allows you to run two cards (all 4 DVI headers) into the monitor.....that allows you to support 3840 x 2400 @ 47Hz without too many problems. (OK I know you all want it to run at 100FPS but trust me 40 FPS is ample for many games).

    I agree that $17k is high (the initial IBM launch price was $35k but they dropped to $6k soonish afterwards), you can pick these up on E-Bay now for $2-3k and if you want a high real estate monitor they're fantastic. As a Linux monitor they're unbeatable....so many windows....so little time.
  10. MWJ New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I own a Viewsonic VP2290 and love it. It is identical to the IBM T221 and others that are now out of production.

    I think Toshiba's price WILL plummet. I certainly cannot afford $18,000. My refurbished VP2290 was about $2000.

    Anyone looking at this type of monitor needs to realize most extremely high resolution work is more static. I am willing to have slower response time to get higher resolution. Photo editing, CAD/CAM, and specialized graphics are the target for this monitor. A WQUXGA resolution monitor is the ONLY thing that can fully display 6MP images from digital cameras that have now become cheap and ubiquitous.

    I usually run my monitor at 1/2 resolution (4-red/4-green/4-blue pixels per pixel at 1920x1200). At that 1/2 resolution, it is phenominally crisp and clear, the refresh rate it better, and ALL Windows programs can run without problems. To my mind, the biggest problem with the extremely hi-res is that MS-Windows support is poor.

    The problem with historically slow refresh rates has more to do with that short-sightedness of the DVI interface designers, and I am hopeful that the industry will resolve that issue going forward. NVidia has historically been excellent at supporting the highest resolution monitors, but they have been crippled by the interface. For "gaming" or "video", I'm not sure how much benefit the human eye will be able to discern QUXGA-W at 30+ FPS. Distribution of 2160p (quad-1080p) movies is a long way into the future.

    I would always run my monitor at full resolution if it had a decent refresh rate and 100% Windows compatibility. I predict that 2 years from now (after a huge price drop), many of my colleagues will insist on having a WQUXGA monitor for their work.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page