A lot of these replacements are 50 or 60 pin and wouldn’t be compatible. 
1 Like
Love the concept of the laptop. But waiting for a 17" version with a upgradeable video card. Nothing super highend but enough to play my basic games while I am doing spreadsheets and presentations.
1 Like
RIP, that sad… I guess we just wait on Framework to release new screens on the marketplace then. Something that would be very welcome I feel.
Yes, indeed, it was stated by nrp that the connector supported touch, would be VERY neat if a alternate screen with touch was found or created! 
It’s a external connector, 40pin eDP does not have space for touch systems.
1 Like
The HP spectre x360 14-ea has the same size screen, with the same 3000x2000 pixels, but OLED. It is also a touch screen, but at least this suggests suitable OLED screens are available. Unfortunately, HP lists only part numbers for the whole assembly.
Possible is this one: UHD OLED LCD L99010 110 is suitable for HP Spectre x360 14t ea000 14 EA laptop LCD display/touch assembly ATNA35VJ01|Laptop LCD Screen| - AliExpress
6 Likes
Nvidia isn’t making MXM versions of the 30 series and they’ve never sold MXM cards to general public anyway. Framwork would have to build it’s own system and that would not fit in a slim device.
1 Like
We can only hope that future iteration of Framework laptop will provide better eDP connection.
Ok, assuming the correct 40 pin eDP connector, same or less number of panel bus lanes, panel & backlight voltages, could you drive screens with previous revisions of eDP?
For instance, could I theoretically use this panel, even though it’s eDP 1.3 (user login)?
Or, do I exactly need to match eDP versions and go with a panel like this (user login)?
Given the way DisplayPort handles a lot of things, I would assume so, but I’m curious if anyone here is better at the technical nitty gritty with panels
1 Like
That’s a good question to investigate.
According to VESA.org:
While eDP 1.4b represents the latest VESA Embedded DisplayPort standard, systems in production today are using displays built to eDP 1.3 and earlier. By mid-2016, systems will begin to incorporate eDP 1.4b, and the final standard should continue to increase in adoption and be used in production for several years. In the meantime, VESA members will begin discussing plans for eDP 1.5, which will take advantage of new features that will be introduced in the future release of DisplayPort 1.4. The eDP 1.4b standard is available to VESA members. More information is available at www.vesa.org.
Another hint that it might be possible is this cable, which proports to enable an eDP connector to plug in with a Display Port cable (you might need an external power source to make this work). Since DisplayPort is designed to be backwards compatible, it stands to reason that the eDP equivalent could work.
According to EETimes India:
The ongoing enhancements to eDP v1.4b have been made possible by the flexible nature of DisplayPort. DisplayPort [note: NOT eDP - Soda] is highly extensible and includes the ability to remain backward compatible. An extensive register set is implemented in the sink (display) device to support both new and old features, and other registers indicate device status and allow control by the source. Data packets in the high-speed video interface include pixel data and other various control data. The VESA member companies developing the eDP ecosystem have added the special features described in this article using these DisplayPort features. This will continue, and there is already discussion about a future eDP v1.5 that will utilize the features of DisplayPort v1.4, recently published in February 2016.
This paragraph suggests that eDP 1.4 incorporates backwards compatibility as a feature of DisplayPort (do not confuse DisplayPort with eDP - they are different but similar). So agian, nothing is certain, but it’s possible.
It’s not very explicit, but it seems to suggest that 1.3 displays would work on 1.4 hardware. You’d be on your own to learn about how much this applies to this particular use-case, but theoretically the main difference in 1.4 is power savings, and it should otherwise be pin and protocol compatible.
Frankly, I think it makes sense for it to be compatible with 1.3. Remember: a lot of transition happens, but a good standard is one that enables the least rework by the stakeholders, and someone who runs a computer fab won’t want to redo everything all at once. Supply chains are already complicated, and adding to that complexity is not an attractive position for anybody involved. On the other hand, there was an eDP standard that was said to have eliminated some pins, I can’t find information indicating whether these were eliminated from the physical connector itself. In either case, you might take a battery life hit, since the 1.4 standard explicitly added power saving features.
So experiment with caution, knowing that you might not get what you’re hoping in exchange for money spent. This is an experimental situation, but it could also end up in your favour if it does work out.
3 Likes
I saw this one on aliexpress:
R$ 649,80 | 13.5 polegada 3840x2160 oled atna35vj01 ATNA35VJ01-002 portátil oled painel de exibição de tela lcd não-toque 40pin
Sadly this is the wrong aspect ratio (19:10 if I’m correct) so it will not fit in the Framework. Although possible with a bit of the backpanel showing loil
2 Likes
I dont know about the aspect ratio to be honest, but the one selling this has other oled screens for sale, maybe he have some in the right aspect ratio, i will try to dig more later.
1 Like
Framework display aspect ratio is 3:2, resolution is 2256x1504.
3 Likes
The LCD display on the Acer Chromebook Spin 713 is the exact same resolution, size (13.5 inch), is 3:2, the full assembly comes with a touch digitizer, and it uses a 40 pin eDP connector (not sure which version). The assembly goes for about $140, not a bad deal. That seems like a match!
This amazon listing seems to come without the bezel (see the description), making it plausible I could tape this thing into the existing top cover of the framework. Thoughts?
https://www.amazon.com/LCDOLED-CP713-2W-54PK-CP713-2W-36LN-CP713-2W-33XW-CP713-2W-33PD/dp/B0B7738DWT
2 Likes
I’m not currently knowledgeable enough to know much about the different displays (half of what’s being talked about here goes over my head), but does this mean it may be possible to run a higher resolution display? Or is that, too limited by the connector and cable?
Yes, if you find a suitable replacement. The connector and cable should support much higher resolutions.
1 Like
This looks really promising! There is a chance that the eDP isn’t compatible since it isn’t standardized though! If someone tested it that would be really great!
P.S Might be cheaper getting a used model of this chromebook?
1 Like
I’m chatting with the seller right now to try to confirm this before pulling the trigger. Since the Framework’s BOE NE135FBM-N41 is eDP 1.4, that means the mainboard’s connector is backwards compatible with eDP <= 1.4 right?
P.S Might be cheaper getting a used model of this chromebook?
Oh definitely. My partner uses this chromebook actually, and I only just realized it was so similar. I like chromebooks, but they’re not ideal for my needs. I’m just on a quest to get a touchscreen on my framework
Edit: After doing some digging, I’m thinking the Spin 713 is using the same exact NE135FBM-N41 panel, with a N19Q5 (or N18Q2?) digitizer panel. Starting to think this might work…
MB I think I wrote it a bit off, I meant as in taking a used version of it and removing the screen!
This seems really promising!!!