Specs: Display outputs: HDMI, DVI

One of the most talked-about introductions at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show was Intel’s WiDi (or Wireless Display) technology. In case you missed the company’s demonstrations, WiDi promises to let you transmit whatever is on your notebook’s screen to an HDTV wirelessly. WiDi isn’t the first attempt at wireless display technology, but it does look to be the most consumer-friendly we’ve seen.

WiDi is exposed through the latest generation of Intel 802.11n Centrino-branded wireless adapters (the Ultimate-N 6300, Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250, and Advanced-N 6200), which include a new feature called My WiFi. In much the same way as Bluetooth devices create a PAN (personal-area network), so, too, does My WiFi. This means the actual connection process is quite easy. You pair the notebook and wireless receiver one time using a four-digit code, and the connection is saved. Beyond the current-gen Centrino wireless adapter requirement, WiDi also needs an Arrandale-based Core i7, Core i5, or Core i3 processor (with integrated HD Graphics) and Windows 7.

Unfortunately, it’s not yet possible to piece your own WiDi-compatible notebook together. However, Best Buy sells three laptops from Dell, Sony, and Toshiba that support the technology, and all three builds are fairly well-balanced. They also all include Netgear’s $100 Push2TV wireless display adapter—necessary for firing the video signal from laptop to television.

Testing WiDi

The Push2TV is able to receive a 2.4GHz WiDi signal and output to HDMI or composite audio/video connectors. Netgear includes an HDMI cable with the kit, and that’s the interface we’d recommend for optimal quality. Our test platform consisted of a Dell Studio S15Z-2249CPN notebook with a Core i5-430M processor, 4GB of memory, and Intel’s Centrino Advanced-N 6200 wireless card. At the other end, we had Netgear’s Push2TV attached via HDMI to a Samsung UN55B8000XF 55-inch LED LCD.

Once we matched the wireless adapter’s PAN to our Netgear receiver, the notebook switched from its native 1,366 x 768 resolution to 1,280 x 720. (1080p display output isn't supported in this generation, though videos saved at higher resolutions do play back without a problem.) Two other issues immediately jumped out at us. First, the colors seen on the notebook weren't reflected in the TV's output. Second, there’s a roughly half-second delay between when you move the notebook’s cursor and when you see it move on the television. Now, this isn’t an artifact of transmitting over 802.11n. After all, we’ve used apps on the iPod touch that employ Wi-Fi to control a PC, and those are much more interactive. Intel could have cut down on latency at the expense of higher processor load. However, the target usage model here is aimed at queuing up content on Hulu or YouTube and watching on the big screen. As it stands, WiDi is unusable for gaming on an HDTV.

There’s another drawback to consider. Although WiDi is designed for kicking back and watching high-def content wirelessly through your laptop, the technology presents itself to Windows as an unprotected HDMI output. So, anything that’s played back with HDCP content protection—DVD and Blu-ray movies, for instance—won’t work.

We played back feature films and TV shows in HD through Hulu, along with 720p-based content on YouTube, and found that although the video doesn’t exhibit choppiness, it’s also not as fluid as the notebook being cloned. And although compression artifacts aren’t super-distracting while you’re watching broadcast-quality programming, they’re fairly noticeable on the Windows Desktop. Lossless this technology is not.

Though WiDi isn’t perfect by any means, it’s difficult to knock a technology that’s being enabled using current-generation hardware. Of course, if you want to connect wirelessly in more than one location (or if Intel decides to turn WiDi on across its line of Centrino wireless adapters), you’ll need to buy Netgear’s Push2TV adapter. So long as you understand what WiDi can and can’t do, we can definitely see the technology being a convenient novelty. And at roughly $100 per receiver, it isn’t terribly expensive, either.

by Paul Cross