Framework 12 display sub for higher resolution

Framework Laptop 12
1

Ok, so after a decent bit of use my wife’s only complaint is about how “meh” the screen is. Not bad per say, and better than a lot of machines but it has been found lacking.

A 1440P with a bit higher brightness and better color accuracy would go a long way in her mind. This then started us down the rabbit hole (as we are both in engineering and have worked with custom eDP displays) to see if there was anything off the shelf that would work.

First, what we have to work with:

The display framework used appears to be a BOE NV122WUM-N41
eDP (2 Lanes) , eDP1.2 , HBR1 (2.7G/lane) , 30 pins Connector
1500:1 (Typ.) 50% NTSC

Well, shame. 30pin eDP is kinda limiting. Even if you find a higher resolution the bandwidth of a 30 pin connector being only 2 lanes would limit color depth, framerate or both. Really wish we had 40 pins…

Even then there aren’t many high res displays in this form factor:
Innolux P120ZDG-BF2 - 4k but needs 40 pins (4 lanes I think…)

Well, maybe if we give up on 4k or 1440p we can at least get a decent screen.

BOE GV122WXM-N80 - Correct connector and ~600nits but same bad color reproduction…
Nevermind - it is older and LVDS based…

Maybe if we go with a smaller screen/worse bezels?

AUO G121UAN01.0 is slightly smaller (0.1”) but has a worse contrast…

Messaged some contacts of mine to see if they know of any panels that would be a better fit but it honestly seems like framework picked one of the better panels in this price range. Would have more choices if we had 4 lanes (maybe we do, I haven’t inspected the pinout yet, but I thought I would toss this forum post out to see if anyone else had input.)

Scratch that, it is only 2 lanes:

9 Likes
2

You could probably squeeze 1440p-ish at full color through 2 lanes but that would require someone to make a 2 lane display that uses HBR3 which seems kind of rare as just using 4 slower lanes is probably either cheaper or more power efficient. Hell with dsc it would not even be a problem but I am not even sure edp supports that.

1 Like
3

The display in the Framework Laptop 12 appears to be the same display unit as the Lenovo 500e Yoga Gen 4 Chromebook.

I did some initial searching to see if anyone has done display upgrades on that machine and haven’t yet found any.

My Thinkpad X230t has a frustratingly weird screen (1366x768) but all the work i’ve seen by the community to replace/upgrade this has been with non-touch 1080p displays, which removes the point of it being a 2-in-1.

I think the Framework 12 might be in a similar position, if you could find a better display, would it retain the digitizer, and if not, why not just get a Framework 13?

1 Like
4

Alrighty, I actually have a lead.

Made some calls and I think I can source a display with the following:

  • Resolution: 1920x1080p (vs FW12 at 1920x1200p - Slight downgrade.)
  • Pixel arrangement: RGB Vertical Stripe
  • Active area: 256.32(W) x 144.18(H) vs FW12 at 262.771(W)×164.232(H) mm
  • Mechanical dimensions: 260.32(W) x 174.58(H) vs FW12 at 269.27(W)×181.482(H)
  • Size class: 11.7” (vs FW12 at 12.2”)
  • Color depth: 8 bit
  • Colorspace: TBD (vs bad - 60% SRGB or something like that when I tested.)
  • Contrast: TBD (VS 1500:1)
  • Viewing angles: TBD - I think they said it is IPS so it should be decent.
  • Brightness: 1,000 Nits (Assuming FW12 can source the power. TBD)
  • Surface finish: Eggshell/semi-matte touchscreen (Slightly less durable but much better against glare.)
  • Framerate: 75hz (vs FW16 at 60hz)

Uses 2 eDP lanes and I can get them to put a custom connector on the display.

You lose ~6.5mm of screen width and ~20mm of screen height as well as 120 pixels in height. You also lose the rugged gloss finish. You would also likely lose pen support unless I can figure that one out…

You gain a ton of brightness, 15hz of refresh rate, and a matte finish.

To answer your question: My wife likes the colors even more than the fact that it is a 2-in-1 haha. She would love it to keep the touchscreen but that is secondary.

3 Likes
5

I have some possible leads on a touchscreen OLED. Officially, eDP supports DSC (Display stream compression) with version 1.4 (released in 2015). If enabled, the FW12 should support it given the processor supports version 1.4b.

Sadly, MOQ makes it hard. I would need to get a community buy of something like 100 displays to make it worthwhile. I might be able to get a prototype or two at a reasonable cost…

6

2lane ?

7

Yep - 2 lane eDP.
The other trouble is that it is a touch bigger than the stock framework display. I think it will fit inside the shell but looking at the CAD drawings the stock bezel will cover up the added screen size slightly. Might need a custom 3D printed bezel. (not the end of the world.)

Waiting on a quote for customizing the screen with capacitive touch as well as a full datasheet. We would more than likely lose pen support without a commitment to >1k quantity… ~1k is the “magic number” that typically makes things happen.

3 Likes
8

I would be interested in a display upgrade, especially if it can be specced to retain pen support (touch-only seems easier but pen input supports my use case for the FW12).

My understanding of modern touch screen manufacturing is that the digitizer layer is often integrated into the screen itself, meaning that the bezel size wouldn’t be an issue. I haven’t taken the screen apart to confirm this as my unit is experiencing chassis cracking issues and I don’t want to risk revoking my RMA by taking it apart at the moment. If I am mistaken about the screen on the FW12 I’m sorry for getting anyone’s hopes up.

Honestly, the controversy around the screen quality is probably a limiting factor when it comes to the upgrade path for this computer, really the only paths forward if Framework wants to offer display upgrades for the FW12 is either to pay a display manufacturer to make a custom panel (unlikely given Framework’s history of finding parts already in production to save on cost), or require a concurrent mainboard upgrade with a more standard display connection (more likely but not very budget-friendly).

Coming from a Microsoft Surface Book which had equivalent power and a fantastic screen, but dismal repairability, I was hoping that the FW12 would be a more cost effective and repairable replacement, but sadly the color reproduction of the current screen and lack of compatible replacement panels prevents that from being the case.

EDIT: I’ve been doing some digging and it seems like there might be another potential computer line with similar screens. Samsung xe520qab, Samsung xe521qab, and Samsung xe525qbb Chromebooks have similar screen specs and most of the reviews I can find highlight the quality of the display. I’m including a picture taken from an ebay listing for a screen from an xe521qab showing the display and digitizer connectors.

s-l1600
s-l16001600×900 241 KB

1 Like
9

Looks like the samsung parts are customized for them. The Samsung part numbers are:

ba96-07260A
ba96-08322b

Based on the pictures It appears to be a solid assembly. Not sure if you could easily extract the display…

10

Ok, still debating with the manufacturer. It sounds like they have one off the shelf. Sadly, it is about 5mm too big in width. If I remember correctly, it might be possible to get that 2.5mm out of the bezel on each side but this may impact durability.

Resolution: 2560x1600p (vs FW12 at 1920x1200p)

  • Pixel arrangement: RGB Vertical Stripe

  • Active area: 275.4(W) x 169.6 (H) vs FW12 at 262.771(W)×164.232(H) mm

  • Mechanical dimensions: 275.4(W) x 175.2(H) vs FW12 at 269.27(W)×181.482(H)

  • Size class: 12.6” (vs FW12 at 12.2”)

  • Color depth: 8 bit

  • Colorspace: 174% SRGB (vs 60% SRGB or something like that when I tested.)

  • Contrast: 10,000:1 (VS 1500:1)

  • Viewing angles: TBD (Should be excellent given OLED)

  • Brightness: 430 Nits (similar to FW12 stock.)

  • Surface finish: TBD

  • Framerate: TBD (Depends on how much we get out of DSC) (vs FW16 at 60hz)

  • 10 point touch, no pen support by default.

  • Price: TBD (Waiting on pricing and MOQ for pen support.)

4 Likes
11

Hello !

That’s a nice find !

For the larger screen problem, do you already have an idea to handle the 5mm ?

Thank for your find, hope this works ! I will be interested to buy one (depending on the price an compatibility oc) :slight_smile:

12

Yes, I have an idea of how to make it fit but it may be somewhat time consuming as I will need to CAD model the frame/back of the lid. (Unless framework wants to gift us the cad model :wink: )

Still a little early for that, I need to get a prototype screen quote and try it first.

3 Likes
13

Ok, Heard back from another supplier:

Resolution: 2160x1348p (vs FW12 at 1920x1200p) - Slightly lower than last option.

  • Pixel arrangement: RGB Vertical Stripe

  • Active area: 268.92(W) x 168.08 (H) vs FW12 at 262.771(W)×164.232(H) mm - Slightly bigger!

  • Mechanical dimensions: 268.92(W) x 178.08(H) vs FW12 at 269.27(W)×181.482(H) - IT FITS!

  • Size class: 12.5” (vs FW12 at 12.2”)

  • eDP 1.4 support

  • Color depth: 10 bit - Awesome!

  • Colorspace: 100% DCI-P3!!! (vs 50% DCI-P3 something like that when I tested.)

  • Contrast: 100,000:1 (VS 1500:1)

  • Viewing angles: 85*

  • Brightness: 660 Nits (Much brighter than framework)

  • Surface finish: TBD

  • Framerate: 90Hz (vs FW16 at 60hz) (Might need lower resolution to run at 90hz vs 60hz)

  • 10 point touch, no pen support by default.

  • Price: TBD (Waiting on pricing and MOQ for pen support.)

Assuming the panel runs at HBR3 rates it should be able to easily run over 2 lanes. That being said, I think one of the re-driver chips is limited to HBR2 (datasheet not publicly available, but I have found some indication online that it is HBR2) but even so, that puts is just above the requirements to drive this display with DSC.

Best news is: No DSC should be required if you keep to 60hz, or drop to 8 bit color at 90hz even at full resolution at HBR2.

4 Likes
14

While I’d personally prefer 2560x1600 oled, the “if fits” bit is worth a lot more. s that one also oled?

15

I appreciate the effort, but without good pen support, it wouldn’t really be worth it for me. I got the F12 over the F13 primarily for its stylus support.

1 Like
16

Correct, also OLED.

For an industry that moves so quickly, I am always surprised at how long it takes to discuss things.

1 Like
17

Hello, I am super interested in getting a better display for the FW 12 I would even be willing to get rid of touch screen capability. If there’s any updates or you find a solution let me know and I’d love to purchase a panel

18

I’m also very interested in a better screen option for the Framework 12. The only dealbreaker for me (as well as quite a few of my friends when they come to me to ask for laptop purchasing advice) is the color space of the screen. At least 100% sRGB is a must for me (and many of my friends)

1 Like
19

Alas, after further testing I have found that the screen cannot talk 2 lanes of eDP without being customized. The manufacturer is willing and able to do so but it would take $6k worth of NRE to adapt the screen for the framework 12.

The plus is, they are willing to add pen support for that as well. Sadly, I do not have the capitol to make it happen. Framework, you guys want the contact info for a better 12” screen?

Nathaniel.

5 Likes
20

Damn, this is really cool, I would love a better display, but stylus support is a must for me. I wonder if it would be worth it to do a kickstarter or similar to get the initial funds and some assured purchases for the manufacturer. That way if we don’t hit the target, the money would be refunded. Any word on what unit price will look like?