Intel to make High Def chips for Big Screen TV's

Marbles · « **on:** 18 Dec 2003, 02:55 pm »

They will make the announcement at CES.

This will not be a TI type DLP, but rather a liquid crystal on silicon type.

Anlysts predict the average price of a hi-def TV will be $2000 this time next year as apposed to $2750 without Intel making their chips.

Source is today's WSJ.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 04:22 pm »

Looks like the higher-ups are tired of the fence sitters and are finally ready to make HighDef ubiquitous. In today's market it takes companies like Intel to get it done. I think the general public is waiting for plasma displays to come under $1,500. Rear projection and directview highdef sets just are not enticing/sexy enough to get them to switch. I know thats what all my non-home theater associates want. Even my luddite friend who refuses to buy a dvd player drools after plasma displays. Any more details on the chip?

Captain Humble · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 05:33 pm »

Last time my wife and I shopped, the sales guy indicated that LCDs have a limitted life before the display is shot. The LCD can't be repaired. DLP has no such problems.

Fact or Hype???

vpolineni · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 06:00 pm »

captain humble,
somewhat fact. once the pixel on a lcd screen goes dead, you really can't do anything about it. for dlp tv's, all you have to do is replace the lamp which costs around 200 dollars.

Cens · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 06:06 pm »

Vpolineni,

Do you know where plasma fits in the repair/replacement hierarchy? Is it more like DLP or LCD. I'm one of those people drueling over the idea of a wall-mounted plasma TV.

Regards,

Chris

vpolineni · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 06:20 pm »

cens,
i don't know that much about plasmas.. from what i've read, reliability is more dependent on the manufacture. for example, pioneer makes great plasma displays.. i do know that to get it re-gassed is really expensive. your best bet is to go to avs forum and do some research there.

Cens · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 06:35 pm »

Thanks, Vpolineni, and good suggestion.

Chris

MaxCast · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 09:46 pm »

Yeah, but will it have the cool little intel inside sticker on it?

DeanSheen · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 10:50 pm »

Thanks Marbles.

Very good thread here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=dc1b69b95fd0a46e5252da6afa0e14f0&threadid=339226

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 11:52 pm »

Yeah Marbles (et al), that news in USA Today - also today.

Looks like I'll wait a while longer to upgrade my eager video system.

The Samsung 43" with the Texas Instruments DLP they mention in the story is excellent. From many yards away at Best Buy, it is very much clearer and brighter than those rear projection TV's around it. It's much thinner and lighter, too. A typical rear projection TV of that size would be something like 200 lbs., this is 1/3 of that...and better pic, to boot.

I could live with 90% of that quality pic from Intel at 50-60% of the cost next year or the year after that.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Dec 2003, 11:54 pm »

Quote

Looks like I'll wait a while longer to upgrade my eager video system.

hehe, that 'meager', not eager.

ZooDog · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 03:14 am »

The projected life span of plasmas is 8-12 years depending on usage. LCD panels should last longer and don't have the burn-in issue that plasmas have, but I think that plasma has a clear edge in picture quality. DLP rear-projectors have a bulb that is rated for around 8000 hours of use. When the bulb burns out you just pay between $200 and $300 to get it replaced and your TV will look as bright as it did the day you took it out of the box.

bubba966 · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 03:51 am »

How come this is here, and not in the HT circle?

Thatsa bad Marbles!

Anyways...

So Intel feels like making HD LCD displays huh? LCD has got to be the poorest picture quality of any current display technology. I've only ever seen one LCD based display that was even ok IMO (was a Sony LCD front projector). Which is amusing because if I recall properly the worst LCD based display I recall seeing was a Sony LCD rear projector. Why they can get one right, and not the other is beyond me...

LCD is lacking compared to a Plasma. And a plasma is lacking compared to a good CRT rear projector. And a CRT RPTV is lacking compared to a good CRT direct view tube.

I seriously wonder why people are so awestruck by plasma monitors? They're horrendously expensive, and don't have the greatest picture. Sure, they've greatly dropped in price & greatly improved the quality.

But they're still expensive as hell, and still look like ass (IMO).

I do need to go down & check out the new HDMI equipped Pioneers. Maybe that's a lot better than current plasma displays (it's supposed to be...).

Mathew_M · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 06:42 am »

I agree that the current 'budget' ($4,000 and down) plasmas look like ass. In fact I often offer the dissenting opinion when people bring up plasmas mainly price vs. performance. Joe and Jane Public however are awestruck by something that hangs on the wall like a painting. And I agree. However current Plasma technology just doesn't cut it. If I were to buy today (and now wouldn't based on this news) and did not have the type of room for a front projector I'd opt for the Samsung DLP set. It has the best picture, suffers no burn in or dead pixels, is easy to set up and looks pretty darned sexy.

bubba966 · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Dec 2003, 06:49 am »

I'm not saying that "budget" plasmas look like ass. I'm saying that ALL plasmas look like ass IMO.

I'm sure someday they won't. But I've got fairly high standards when it comes to my video quality. And plasma displays haven't cut the mustard yet. And that's on digital original (DVD, HD) sources. Feed a plasma an analog source (LD, VCR, OTA) and things go downhill fast!