ibm t220 t221 lcd monitors for sale

The IBM T220 and T221 are LCD monitors that were sold between 2001 and 2005, with a native resolution of 3840×2400 pixels (WQUXGA) on a screen with a diagonal of 22.2 inches (564 mm). This works out to 9,216,000 pixels, with a pixel density of 204 pixels per inch (80 dpcm, 0.1245 mm pixel pitch), much higher than contemporary computer monitors (about 100 pixels per inch) and approaching the resolution of print media. The display family was nicknamed "Big Bertha" in some trade journals. Costing around $8,400 in 2003, the displays saw few buyers. Such high-resolution displays would remain niche products for nearly a decade until modern high-dpi displays such as Apple"s Retina display line saw more-widespread adoption.

The IBM T220 was introduced in June 2001 and was the first monitor to natively support a resolution of 3840×2400.LFH-60 connectors. A pair of cables supplied with the monitor attaches to the connectors and splits into two single-link DVI connectors each, for a total of four DVI channels. One, two or four of the connectors may be used at once.

IBM T220 comes with a Matrox G200 MMS video card and two power supplies. To achieve native resolution the screen is sectioned into four columns of 960×2400 pixels or four tiles of 1920x1200 pixels. The monitor"s native refresh rate is 41 Hz.

This is a revised model of the original T220. Notable improvements include using only one power adapter instead of two and support for more screen modes. However, power consumption increased from 111 to 135 watts (111 to 150 at maximum.) They were initially available as 9503-DG1 and 9503-DG3 models. The 9503-DG1 model came with a Matrox G200 MMS graphics card and two LFH-60 connector cables. The 9503-DG3 model came with one cable connecting from one or two DVI ports on the graphics card to the T221"s LFH-60 sockets.

IBM T221 started out as an experimental technology from the flat panel display group at IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. In 2000, a prototype 22.2 in TFTLCD, code-named "Bertha", was made in a joint effort between IBM Research and IBM Japan. This display had a pixel format of 3840×2400 (QUXGA-W) with 204 ppi. On 10 November 2000, IBM announced the shipment of the prototype monitors to U.S. Department of Energy"s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Later on 27 June 2001, IBM announced the production version of the monitor, known as T220. Later in November 2001, IBM announced its replacement, IBM T221. On 19 March 2002, IBM announced lowering the price of IBM T221 from US$17,999 to US$8,399. Later on 2 September 2003, IBM announced the availability of the 9503-DG5 model.

IBM and Chi Mei Group of Taiwan formed a joint venture called IDTechViewSoniciiyamaOEMed the T221 and sold it under their brand names. The production line of IDTech at Yasu Technologies was sold to Sony in 2005

Novaković, Nebojša (2003-03-28). "IBM T221 - the world"s finest monitor?". The Inquirer. Archived from the original on September 14, 2009. Retrieved 2011-12-23.link)

This is a revised model of the original T220. Notable improvements include using only one power adapter instead of two and support for more screen modes. However, power consumption increased from 111 to 135 watts (111 to 150 at maximum.) They were initially available as 9503-DG1 and 9503-DG3 models. The 9503-DG1 model came with a Matrox G200 MMS graphics card and two LFH-60 connector cables. The 9503-DG3 model came with one cable connecting from one or two DVI ports on the graphics card to the T221"s LFH-60 sockets.

The IBM T220 first debuted in 2001 and was the first (and apparently still last as of 2014) to feature "Wide Quad Ultra Extended Graphics Array" (WQUXGA). The later enahnced (and more well known) T221 came out in 2003 and was discontinued shortly thereafter in 2005. It was produced as a high density IPS monitor for high-resolution needs: invariably it showed up mostly in specialized professions and not purchased by many consumers due to the high price. It seems that it was pitched to be [intentionally] paired alongside an IntelliStation.

NOTE: As of October 16th 2014, Apple has released a 5K Retina iMac featuring a display of 5120 x 2880 -- officially being the first on beating the T221; it has 5.3 million more pixels. It took 13 years for this resolution to be surpassed.

One unique aspect pertaining to these monitors is that the intelligence regarding the resolution scaling is pixel perfect: meaning no gaussian blurs are required; unless the resolution is not "even" disallowing proper pixel division. They are capable of scaling down properly to as low as 640x480.

It"s worth noting that due to the fact the T221s can use a maximum of 150 watts (primarily if the monitor is on maximum brightness), they have two cooling fans. Fortunately they"re not very loud, but it"s important that they are replaced/repaired if they fail.

I"ve noticed (even with a brand new T221) that they inject a noisy ground loop into the power grid through the ground. This seems to affect all audio devices on the same power circuit. The manual does explicitly state you need a properly grounded connection which makes the problem seem as if this was known. I opened up the external power brick and Chemicon electrolytics were used: so the issue isn"t due to the quality of the components but something with the design of the power supply.

Even though the design was conceived at the T. J. W. research center, much of the later implementation and manufacturing was sent to IBM Japan in coordination with IBM"s (at the time) IDtech. As such, most warranties found with T221s are for Japan as many were later re-sold in North America. The warranty card has some unusual design features including repetition of the stripeless IBM logo:

NOTICE: because nVidia has restricted their advanced multi-monitoring software (mosaic) to Quadro cards, you must purchase a Quadro that has mosaic capabilities. nVidia cards (such as the GTX) will not work as they are restricted to nvidia surround; and nvidia surround does not work with the T221.

The card of choice I went with was an nVidia NVS 510 (because it has four inputs and can operate well with my System x 3300 M4; this particular system x refuses to work properly with AMD GPUs of any flavour). There are two ways to approach configuring the T221, the first one is more optimal, the second one less so. But before that is explain, here are the common resolutions you will be working with when setting up "virtual monitors" to the T221 (as the T221 obviously can"t receive a video signal from one connector, the controller divides the panel up into either four or two "virtual monitors").

Load up the NVIDIA Control Panel, go to Display > Change resolution. Go through each one of the "IBM Digital Displays" and set them to 1920x1200, NVIDIA will default the values to 41 Hz. Then go to: Workstation > Set up Mosaic > Create new configuration. Select "4" for total displays from the dropdown, and choose the 2x2 topology.

After you enable Mosaic (feel free to power off the T221 for 8 seconds as the nVidia card will flicker through a bunch of garbage resolutions causing the T221 to power off and on rapidly). Once that"s done, Mosaic will stupidly see it as one display at 3840x2400 and will assign it to 13 Hz. Go *back* a screen and set all of the IBM virtual displays in mosaic to 1920x1200 @ 41 Hz (before you hit Apply feel free to power off the T221 for 8 seconds again). Once that"s done just go through the rest of the menus in mosaic and click finish.

Credit for the hex value goes to "wildpig" from here: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/788053/geforce-900-series/gtx-980-4-monitor-surround-and-the-ibm-t221/

Load up the NVIDIA Control Panel, go to Display > Change resolution. Create a new custom resolution (in this case 920x2400 @ 48Hz or 1920x1200 @ 48Hz). Assign all of the virtual monitors the custom resolution once finished. Then go back to: Workstation > Set up Mosaic > Create new configuration. Select "4" for total displays from the dropdown, and choose the 2x2 topology if you"re using 1920x1200, or 1x4 for 920x2400. Basically the same process as last time (Mosaic will see it as a single 3840x2400 monitor @ 13 Hz, so you need to go back, reassign the virtual monitors, and then complete the setup).

The same pattern seems to apply to some aspects of the computer industry, when cost pressures take precedence over quality, features and innovation. In 2001, we saw the introduction of the IBM T220 monitor, with resolution of 3840×2400 on a 22.2″ panel. It was later superseded by the T221 with very similar specifications, but it was ultimately discontinued in 2005. Nothing matching it has been available since. Today, the screen resolutions seems to be undergoing an erosion. On small panels the “standards” (sub-standards?) have settled at the completely unusable 1024×600, and with total of three exceptions from Dell (3007WFP, 3008WFP), Samsung (305T) and Apple (Cinema HD), the commonly available screens are limited to 1920×1080 resolution. Even 1920×1200 screens are getting more and more rare, especially on laptops, because screens are marketed by diagonal size and for any given diagonal length, 16:9 ratio screens have a smaller surface area than 16:10 ratio screens.

IBM T221 monitors, especially of the latest DG5 variety, are very hard to come by and still expensive if you can ever find one. Typically they sell for double what you can get a Dell 3007WFP for. But you do get more than twice the pixel count and more than twice the pixel density. I have recently acquired a T221 and if your eyes can handle it (and mine can), the experience is quite amazing – once you get it working properly. Getting it working properly, however, can be quite a painful experience if you want to get the most out of it.

My T221 came with a single LFH-60 -> 2x SL-DVI (single link DVI) cable. There are two LFH-60 connectors on the T221, which allows the screen to be run using 4x SL-DVI inputs. This provides a maximum refresh of 48Hz. There is also a way to run this monitor using 2xDL-DVI inputs at 48Hz, but this requires special adapters, but that is a subject for another article, since I haven’t got any of those yet.

The 13Hz mode is completely straightforward to get working on both RHEL6 and XP x64, but 13Hz is just not fast enough. You can actually see the mouse pointer skipping as you move it, and playing back a video also results in visible frame skipping. So I have spent the effort to get the [email protected] mode working on my ATI HD4870X2. The end results are worth it, but the process isn’t entirely straightforward. The important thing to consider is that when running in anything other than 3840×[email protected] mode appears to the computer as two completely separate 1920×2400 monitors.

The QXGA, or Quad eXtended Graphics Array, display standard is a resolution standard in display technology. Their high pixel counts and heavy display hardware requirements mean that there are currently few CRT and LCD monitors which have pixel counts at these levels. These terms are currently relegated to the highest-end consumer computer display hardware for those buying LCD.

WQXGA is often found in 30" displays like the Dell 3008WFP and the Apple Cinema Display. As of this date, there are few WQXGA displays in the consumer marketplace, but their price is higher than most displays used by graphic professionals, and their refresh speed is not close to that used in current consumer displays. It is unlikely that WQXGA, or next-generation HXGA, displays will be commonplace anytime soon. It should also be noted, however, that many standard 21" / 22" CRT monitors can be used at the QXGA resolution. Some of the highest-end 19" CRTs also support this resolution.

QXGA (Quad eXtended Graphics Array) is a display resolution of 2048×1536 pixels with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The name comes from the fact that it has four times as many pixels as an XGA display. As of 2007, this is the highest non-experimental and non-widescreen resolution, and the number of monitors that can display images at this resolution are somewhat limited, especially among LCDs. The number of CRT monitors offering this resolution has actually dropped off, as CRT makers such as NEC and Sony have stopped offering their higher end models. Examples of LCDs with this resolution are the IBM T210 and the Eizo G33 and R31 screens, but in CRT monitors this resolution is much more common; some examples include the ViewSonic G225fB, NEC FP2141SB or Mitsubishi DP2070SB, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514, and Dell and HP P1230. Of these monitors, none is still in production. A related display size is WQXGA, which is a wide screen version. CRTs offer a way to achieve QXGA cheaply. Models like the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2045U and IBM ThinkVision C220P retailed for around 200 USD, and even higher performance ones like the ViewSonic PerfectFlat P220fB remained under 500 USD. As recently as last year, many off-lease P1230s could be found on eBay for under 150 USD. The LCDs with WQXGA or QXGA resolution typically cost 4 to 5 times more for the same resolution. IDTech manufactured a 15" QXGA IPS panel. NEC had sold laptops with QXGA screens in 2002-2005 for Japanese market

Prior to 2007, devices that could display this resolution were very rare, but many manufacturers have since come out with a 27"-30" model that is capable of WQXGA, albeit at a much higher price than lower resolution monitors of the same size. Several mainstream WQXGA monitors are available with 30 inch displays, such as the Apple Cinema Display, the Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC and 3008WFP, the Hewlett-Packard LP3065, the Gateway XHD3000, and the Samsung 305T. Specialist manufacturers like Planar Systems, Barco (LC-3001) and possibly others offer similar models. The 27" iMac and Dell U2711 monitor also feature a 27" S-IPS panel from LG Display which has 2560×1440 resolution.

One feature which is currently unique to the 30" WQXGA monitors are their ability to function as the centerpiece & main display of a three-monitor array of complementary aspect ratios, with two UXGA (1600x1200) 20" monitors turned vertically on either side. The resolutions are equal, and the size of the 1600 resolution edges (if the manufacturer is honest) is within a tenth of an inch, presenting a "picture window view" without the extreme lateral dimensions, small central panel, asymmetry, resolution differences, or dimensional difference of other three-monitor combinations. The resulting 4960x1600 composite image has a 3.1:1 aspect ratio.

Of course, this also means one UXGA 20" monitor in portrait orientation can also be flanked by two 30" WQXGA monitors for a 6320x1600 composite image with a 15.8:3 (79:15, 5.267:1) aspect ratio.

QWXGA (Quad Wide eXtended Graphics Array) is a display resolution of 2048×1152 pixels with a 16:9 aspect ratio. A few LCD QWXGA monitors are available with 23 and 27 inch displays, such as the Acer B233HU (23") and B273HU (27"), the Dell SP2309W, and the Samsung 2342BWX.

QSXGA (Quad Super Extended Graphics Array) is a display resolution of 2560×2048 pixels with a 5:4 aspect ratio. Grayscale monitors with a 2560×2048 resolution, primarily for medical use, are available from Planar Systems (Dome E5), Eizo (Radiforce G51), Barco (Nio 5,MP), WIDE (IF2105MP), IDTech (IAQS80F) and possibly others.

This resolution is exactly four times 1920x1200 (in pixels) and was released as a product in June 2001 by an IBM display panel built into the IBM T220 LCD monitor, IBM T221 (models DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5), Iiyama AQU5611DTBK, ViewSonic VP2290b IDTech MD22292 (models B0, B1, B2, B5, C0, C2; all other brands are in fact relabeled IDTech models, IDTech does not sell these monitorsdisplay cards with a DVI connector are capable of supporting the 3840x2400 resolution. However, the maximum refresh rate will be limited by the number of DVI links that are connected to the monitor. 1, 2, or 4 DVI connectors are used to drive the monitor using various tile configurations. Only the IBM T221-DG5 and IDTech MD22292B5 support the use of dual-link DVI ports using an external converter box.

Most systems using these monitors use at least 2 DVI connectors to send video to the monitor. These DVI connectors can be from the same graphics card, different graphics cards, or even different computers. Motion across the tile boundary(ies) can show tearing if the graphics card(s) are not synchronized. The display panel can be updated at a speed between 0Hz and 41Hz (48Hz for the IBM T221-DG5, and IDTech MD22292B5). The refresh rate of the video signal can be higher than 41Hz, or 48Hz, but the monitor will not update the display any faster if graphics card(s) do so.

As of January 2007, none of the WQUXGA monitors (IBM, ViewSonic, Iiyama, ADTX) are in production anymore. The highest-resolution color displays on sale are WQXGA. However, Eyevis produces a 56" LCD named EYELCD 56 QUAD HD which can deliver 3840x2160

Didn"t Apple find a way around this with their 30" LCD running through ADC ports?Apple"s 30" (and just about every other 30") is only 2560x1600, substantially lower in resolution than the 3840x2400 of the T221.

The monitor was originally created for engineers to use. I believe Los Alamos was one of IBM"s first customers for systems using the T220/T221. The low refresh rate and contrast aren"t a big deal for this monitor"s typical uses.

You have a bear. We"re still using XP to drive these monitors, and as soon as we can free one up to test it with 7 we will, but the thinking is that we are SOL. The new ATI videocards are promising, but whether or not they will drive these correctly is up in the air. I haven"t done any googling, though. It"s almost like the "HD revolution" is causing everything to take a step back. At this point in time, it"s just WAY easier to stick with 2k monitors. But, good luck.

I"ve used my T220 (VP2290b to be specific) on XP for several years without issue. The monitor supports four DVI plugs, but will function on a single DVI connection just fine, but only at 13hz. While this sounds horrid, it"s usable for everything but video (and even most youtube clips are watchable). So if you find yourself wanting 9.2 MP for Photoshop, programming, CAD, etc - it"s entirely usable. There is a SLIGHT "skip" effect with the mouse, but it"s not very noticeable, and there is no flicker. I even plugged the screen into a friend"s Macbook pro, and it ran fine without issue at full resolution. To get above 13Hz, you need to use more plugs, and there are various strategies for doing this. DVI has no "maximum resolution" - just finite bandwidth and you must trade resolution for refresh rate. Running the monitor at 1920x1200 will enable full refresh rate with one connector, if the need arises (Watching a DVD). The "converter box" is supported by newer versions of this screen, and it separates each link in a dual-link DVI, and routes it to each one of the connectors (This monitor was made before dual-link DVI). It"s not officially compatible with the older screens and I"ve never tried. Without the converter box, you use multiple connectors to drive different parts of the screen, which is well documented.

I"d say Windows 7 is probably the least T220-friendly OS (vs XP and Mac), but it definitely works with adequate hardware and some "tweaking" - and there"s no need to spend big money on a professional level videocard or anything "rated" for 3840x2400. YMMV, but every videocard I"ve tried (about 10) supports this resolution in some capacity in XP.

This monitor is not for the faint of heart. I have 20x18 vision and can read it easily from 12-18" away at normal DPI, but several of my friend with even slightly impaired vision find it very difficult to read. I can"t imagine getting work done without this monitor - you can view EIGHT documents in "page view" in word at the same time at 100% zoom. However it"s beyond useless for gaming, which drives a large amount of modern PC purchases. Also, the technology to make this monitor has probably gone down in price, but it was $22000 USD in 2001, and $8500 USD in 2004. Even if it fell to $1500, you can buy a lot of "consumer" monitors for that money. I"m sure that has a lot to do with demand. On the contrast ratio / general image quality: The measurement system for contrast ratios is anything but standard, and there is a large amount of embellishment with these figures, especially some of these "10000:1" numbers that float around. Whatever the number is, 300 or 400 to 1, it"s very conservative. I"ve seen monitors that were visually superior to this, but only slightly. I own a sharp aquos and a dell ultrasharp (IPS), and the T220 is very competitive. When you factor in it"s 9.2 MP resolution, it"s a no-brainer for photo editing. In closing, for those who haven"t seen a 220DPI monitor, the pixels are just small enough for the eye to resolve the individual pixels - but NOT the subpixels. It"s absolutely amazing to get 4" away from the monitor and just see more detail (like with paper), and not a bunch of RGB elements. This means there are almost no aliasing effects.

Holy sweet mother of Christ. That thing has twice the resolution of my two 24" LCDs combined, and all shoehorned into a little 22" panel. That"d be a bit small for my tastes, but I"d love to see that on a 30" LCD myself. I"d definitely make room on my desk for something like that.

Holy sweet mother of Christ. That thing has twice the resolution of my two 24" LCDs combined, and all shoehorned into a little 22" panel. That"d be a bit small for my tastes, but I"d love to see that on a 30" LCD myself. I"d definitely make room on my desk for something like that.

Anyway didn"t mean to brag. Hopefully the OP / anyone else with T220 questions will benefit from this, and I"m glad so many people are impressed - hopefully companies will make monitors with higher resolutions (I love how to be labeled "1080p" many desktop monitors have robbed us of 120 vertical pixels, going from 1900x1200 to 1900x1080).

Judging by that calculation, a standard 24" 1920x1200 LCD (like the pair I have) is ~93DPI. Presumably the T221 is 221DPI. I wouldn"t mind a panel somewhere in the middle of that range, say ~150DPI or so (about the DPI of cell phone screens, it seems). For a 24" 16:10 panel, that"s around about 3075x1912. That in itself would be quite the upgrade. Incompatible as hell with any sort of gaming, but interesting nonetheless.