Another day, another paisa
|
|
|
Low power laptops with embedded Displayport are on the way
A LOT OF ATTENTION has been given to creating ever lower power CPUs for the notebook PC market, while keeping the maximum performance possible. So, today you have a whole gamut of those, stretching on the Intel side from low power Atoms for netbooks to quad-core mobile Core i7-M parts with discrete graphics on the Calpella platform. AMD of course has its own competitive line of products in the notebook arena, too, with more coming this year.
Somewhere near the top of the line are Intel's Arrandale dual-core 32nm Westmere-based Core i5-M processors with integrated GPU and Northbridge chip inside the same package, the dual-die MCM approach as in its desktop Clarkdale cousin. As one can see on the early products, these CPUs enable some lightweight, very low power machines, also under the Calpella platform family. The dual channel DDR3 memory, 4MB L3 cache and PCIe x16 interface are all the same as on the desktop version.
However, there's one extra benefit that, according to Intel, can help reduce the power even more here, and ultimately has little to do with the CPU die itself - an embedded Displayport interface inside the Arrandale Core i5, but on the GPU die portion.
The usual approach using the current crop of LVDS signal (DVI alike) LCD panels on the Calpella mobile platform would be to go through the FDI display link lanes between the CPU/GPU chip and the Southbridge chip, and then use the conversion circuitry inside it to get the LVDS signal out to the display panel. The embedded Displayport approach cuts all that and drives the display directly out of the GPU die, disabling - and therefore saving the power of - the FDI link and the display drive portion of the Southbridge.
So, compared to the LVDS panel approach, an estimated 300 milliwatts are saved right there - not much for a desktop, but easily one per cent of a typical ultraslim notebook average power consumption just for this point.
On top of that, embedded Displayport also has a fixed frequency, just varying the number of lanes (1 or 2), therefore lowering the EMI somewhat compared to LVDS. The seamless refresh rate switching, provided the OS supports it, enables embedded Displayport panels to go from 60Hz down to 50Hz or 40Hz and back up dynamically depending on the power management policy defined, which can also save over 100 milliwatts per panel without having to change the link clock speed. And, a smaller wire count with a smaller connector saves more space in a compact notebook enclosure.
All this sounds beautiful, however, it also means that new LCD panels have to be used. And there we have a problem: resolution choice. The new embedded Displayport panels will, seemingly, almost all be in that awful 16:9 size format, good only for watching widescreen DVD and Blu-ray, and not fit for any actual PC productivity work, the majority of games or, for that matter, any standard TV signal. Again PCs, including laptops, are meant to be used for actual computing - office, web and other work most of the time - not watching widescreen movies. LCD TVs and Blu-ray players do a better job for the latter anyway.
Try working on a typical spreadsheet in Office 2007, for instance, on a 1366x768 display that's now common in the 'slim' notebooks. The width ends up mostly unused, while all those buttons, bars and such take so much of the reduced precious vertical screen space that you can barely see more than a few rows at a time - requiring much more time wasted in up and down scrolling while doing your work. It's even worse if browsing web pages, which are still mostly vertical. I have experienced it on a couple of brand new notebooks recently, and vowed never to use such a display for any PC work, desktop or mobile.
Now here's the tragedy. According to Intel's own presentations from the recent IDF 2010 Spring in Beijing, that infamous 1366x768 format is quickly displacing the 1280x800 one, and the next year will see total dominance of that 16:9 format in the laptop displays, with some 85 per cent of all new laptops in 2011 sporting the useless 1366x768, and some 12 per cent using the little less useless, but still wasteful 1600x900 resolution. And I thought, a few years ago, that the 1680x1050 was the worst possible oddity, resolution wise. What happened to 1600x1200?
Now, this was not driven by either customer or system vendor demand at all. In fact, the 16:9 display size move on laptops as well as desktops came strictly from - often seen as habitually greedy and stingy - Taiwanese and Korean display panel vendors, adopting the shortsighted quick profit policy to save a few cents per panel by using the same masks and size proportions for everything from LCD or LED TV to desktop, mobile and even digital picture frame displays. Keep in mind that most digital camera photos to display on those 'frames' are still natively in 4:3 format, not 16:9.
And, this was basically forced upon us by them, with the complicit notebook vendors - almost all of them - being the accomplices. I have heard dozens of complaints across all the users, analysts and vendor representatives who I talked to about this, without a single positive comment on the 16:9 encroachment. Even in Taiwan.
So, while the embedded Displayport in Intel's Arrandale nicely supports a two lane 1920x1200 beautiful full colour 16:10 display - a nearly Golden Ratio proportion, if you noticed - it's almost certain that basically all panels using the new interface and the matching benefits like controlled LED backlight and such will be of the 16:9 kind. Unless, maybe, some of the new mainland Chinese or other panel vendors see the real market opportunity for tens of millions of PC users who want to do productive work on their new systems without irritating non-stop scrolling on squashed displays, while enjoying the benefits of low power Displayport, LED backlight and such.
In summary, embedded Displayport will help the new 2010 notebooks save even more power and a bit of board space too, but the 16:9 TV-format panels coming along with it are a disappointment. Since AMD's Fusion and Intel's Sandy Bridge desktop and laptop CPU entries with the next levels of integrated graphics will come out early next year, hope that by then, both big CPU vendors and key system vendors listen to the masses - since the panel vendor seem not to - and give us back the 16:10 or 4:3 hi-res displays, preferably 1920x1200 for all displays above 14 inches and 1600x1200, 1600x1000, then 1400x900, for the sizes below that. How about that? Our dear readers, would you support such a campaign with your esteemed votes? µ
Share this:
Share
Often you cannot move the menu to the side as text would not fit.
For example, imagine your browser with a side menu instead of at the top. Now imagine writing in a URL with the text being vertical...
Many programs do have side menus, like Adobe's products but even some of them cannot get around it (Flash, Animation in Photoshop, Dreamweaver to some extent).
I also think a menu of buttons that run horizontally rather than vertically is much more logical for humans. If you think about appliances; TVs, VCRs, ovens, the menu is horizontal rather than vertical. I believe this is because we read left to right (well most of us) so when looking for a button we want to go left to right too.
Your babbling isn't going to change the display format back to the horrible 4:3 or 16:20 formats. I do 3dmax work, I use nearly all adobe products and LOVE 16:9.
The way your coming across is that you hate 16:9 and i know what you actually mean is the lower PX height.
The 1366x768 resolution is not even good for television. HD resolutions are 1280x720 or 1920x1080. 1366x768 is 16/15 of the 720 standard and so all HD video has to be smeared to fit - there really is no way to preserve fidelity with that small amount of stretch. Going between 1920 and 1280 is relatively easy, but this 1366 is good for nothing. Also, it's only used in TVs that claim to be 720p but never in a 1080p. I smell a conspiracy here to promote 1080p Bluray on 1080p sets - they will look better because all the 720 sets smear/stretch the image to 768.
Productivity can be enhanced if you allow multiple apps to show on the screen. What's the point of a multi-tasking OS, if you plan to only have Word maximized(and I know its Word, because maximizing is a Windows thing). The larger widescreen display are great, keep that downloading window off to the side, so you can monitor it while you work on your doc. Have two web sites open to compare data. Copy data from the web easily into a document without switching apps.
Thankfully the iPad uses a 4:3 screen as it has to work with books as well as video.
Hi-Rez 4:3 ratio monitors are vital for office / professional work or just for surfing the web. 16:9 monitors or laptops are just wasting your money. Don't buy them; they will soon get the message!
wholeheartedly.
Why not just put the menus on the right hand side? or the left?
This would allow for normal usage.
Down with the silly widescreen resolutions, we want our 4:3's back.
1920 x 1200 dual display is actually a comfortable work arrangement. Old 21" CRTs used to do better than this (maybe the 2560 x 1600).
But all you see for new LED monitors is 1920 x 1080 at best and you lose an inch off the bottom. I'd be happy paying a premium to get that extra real estate. It makes a big difference.
Its a shame to go backwards.
If 19" 1280x1024 is your preferred resolution, then consider 22" 1680x1050
Essentially the same vertical pixels and same panel height, but wider.
I loathe anything but 4:3 as it's utterly useless to do any work on. Sadly can't see the cost cutters give us products we actually want to use though....much as I'ld like one :(
I agree that this is a terrible spec for screens but one obvious thing which would really help is an option in programs to shift the menus/docks to the left and right side rather than have them chew the vertical real estate. If you could choose as a preference having all your toolbars and menus in another location you could preserve the vertical dimension for reading and viewing. It's gotta happen and I don't know why my old pal Whispering Steve B had been so slow getting onto it.
Using an 1366x768 on my HP is a real pain, not only in spreadsheets, but everything else, looking now at firefox, with all those title/tool/tab/status bars, what's left for the page ends up to a funny 2x1 tennis yard.
I believe it was an awful decision from GUI designers to put those bars on the wide side of the display (horizontally), from Mac to Win to Gnome and KDE.
Kudos for NeXTSTEP who knew how to utilize the display area.
Leroy you are wrong about Lenovo. Check out their new line of thinkpads. They only seem to offer high res 16:10 on the W series now. I am pretty disappointed by this move as I am almost ready for a new laptop.
^^please read comment title
There are still plenty of laptops available with the 16:10 ratio, like Apple's offerings, and most professional workstations from Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc. Thanks to computer manufacturers who are more than happy to sell tech that's more than a few years old at prices about the same as current laptops, you can still get the laptops they were making back in 2007 and 2008 with 16:10 screens for what you'd pay for a Core i5 or i7 now.
I've always heard it was just the greedy LCD manufacturers who wanted to get more money for less glass as the reason behind the move to 16:9, but it actually does make some sense, if all of our TVs will eventually be High-Def 16:9.
The bigger issue may be the resolution rather than the aspect ratio. People are getting ripped off buying "HD+" monitors with that 1600x900 resolution, when real HD is 1920x1080. Those who are smart enough to know what real HD is have to fork over a few hundred more dollars for a full HD display.
If nothing else, hopefully we'll always be able to get 1920x1200 monitors, since the older video cards won't support the 16:9 resolutions, at least until they make updated drivers just for the occasion. Then again, maybe it's all part of a master plan to force us all to 16:9 to make the old stuff incompatible and obsolete. Not a bad way to make us all have to buy new laptops, huh?
You have my vote...
At home I have 2 old CRTs side by side, and at the office most people also have 2 moitors. The reason? so you can have 2 docs side by side. The wide screen formats are good at that, you can get a similar effect with one screen. But that's just my 0.02.
Even in laptops I notice one brand, lenovo has "upgraded" to 16::9 for fifty bucks more and it's harder to find the cheaper and better older one....
They won't get the vote from my wallet.
It's the wet dream of the content mafia that all we can do it watch (and pay) rather than have a general purpose computer -- who knows, someone might program the thing to do something useful that they don't get paid for!
Unfortunately, the average consumer sees only the number of inches and the lower price, and that's where the volume is.
Sorry for the mistake. Of course I ment 1400x1050 at 21-22 inches in my post above.
Dear Nebojsa, you are perfectly right about the resolutions. All I can ask is that you write more about this. Most journalists from the computer press tend to treat the stupid TV resolutions in computer monitors as something perfectly natural.
At present the only reasonable kind of desktop monitor available is the 1280x1024 19-incher. Above and below that there is nothing sensible. I would love 1450x900 at 21-22 inches and 1600x1200 at 24 inches, but nobody has ever made such monitors. So please don't stop. Write about it as much as you can.