bit-tech.net

DisplayPort: A Look Inside

Comments 1 to 25 of 56

Reply
capnPedro 22nd October 2007, 18:01 Quote
DisplayPort? Bah! I haven't even moved onto DVI yet.

(New monitor soon, though)

IMO, a new standard is a bad idea; it just adds confusion for the end user. Which cable do I need? Which port do I use? Will this TV work with my (HD?)DVD player? And so forth.
I've yet to see the disadvantage of VGA, but then again I'm going to be needing a new monitor pretty soon, and DVI offers higher resolution. Otherwise, I don't really see why we're moving on - it just seems like manufacturers want a new specification to fatten their wallets.

Somehow.
<A88> 22nd October 2007, 18:11 Quote
The annoying thing is, the laptop I bought 2 weeks ago has a VGA port. For goodness sake, why? DVI uses analogue signals as well, it just means my brand spanking new monitor isn't being used properly.

<A88>
Tim S 22nd October 2007, 18:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
DisplayPort? Bah! I haven't even moved onto DVI yet.

(New monitor soon, though)

IMO, a new standard is a bad idea; it just adds confusion for the end user. Which cable do I need? Which port do I use? Will this TV work with my (HD?)DVD player? And so forth.
I've yet to see the disadvantage of VGA, but then again I'm going to be needing a new monitor pretty soon, and DVI offers higher resolution. Otherwise, I don't really see why we're moving on - it just seems like manufacturers want a new specification to fatten their wallets.

Somehow.

Are you still running a CRT? The differences in quality are pretty massive between DVI and VGA on a TFT.

I see what you're saying, but there will be dongles for every major PC display interface (i.e. D-L DVI, DVI and VGA), meaning that it'll just "work" with devices using those connectors in much the same way as DVI to VGA converters work. Thus, I don't see why that is going to be a problem. Additionally, DisplayPort is designed to stop people having to worry about what connector or cable they need - they will just need DisplayPort in the future because it'll be supported by both notebooks and desktop PCs.

At the moment we've got a situation where notebooks use LVDS internally and the majority have a VGA port (externally). Aside from Apple's notebooks, it's only really the Santa Rosa notebooks (released in May) that introduced a digital connection (be it DVI or HDMI). On the desktop front, things are a bit simpler, but still there's DL DVI, DVI and VGA... HDMI is more CE orientated, but it has made its way onto PC components that are CE-orientated.

I certainly understand your scepticism, but this wouldn't be accepted by consumers if it wasn't backwards compatible with existing designs. If you go back to PCI-Express, that was "forced" onto the industry - I don't think the same will happen with DisplayPort, as you can handle backwards compatibility very easily.
leexgx 22nd October 2007, 18:25 Quote
i think DisplayPort is an very good idea tis going to take 3-5 years before it probly takes off (users get new pcs)
Mankz 22nd October 2007, 18:41 Quote
I'd be happier if it had screws in the connectors...
Tim S 22nd October 2007, 18:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz.
I'd be happier if it had screws in the connectors...

It's got a latch instead - having broken many screws off DVI/CrossFire dongles in the past, latches sounds like a much better idea ;)
woodshop 22nd October 2007, 18:59 Quote
Supports audio and video... great.. i really don't think thats going to fly.... would have to be supported by the graphics card (the audio) and once more its one more thing to shove through that 16x pci-e slot... O i can see the performance conspiracies already.
Kipman725 22nd October 2007, 19:02 Quote
main reason is that the HDIM watsit has an expensive licensing fee and all your staff have to sign NDA's etc to work with it (even more expense). Personaly I think video over USB will be the most common interface in a few years time, as what is the point in a dedicated graphics interface if all your rendering is done in software (ray tracing etc).
Nature 22nd October 2007, 19:09 Quote
If I was a blonde English youth in a field of green, yellow, and white on a cool spring day I would love and covet the thought of such a potent and powerful insertion connector. A long and thin black interface pulsating with feats and ability. oohh...

How far of a resolution could a 50gig bluray disc project? Surely 2 hours of movie at 1080p isn't 50.

Also sand.

I hope AMD's new Fusion comes with HD audio in their new DTX form factor with displayport.... That wood be gut for bizness.
capnPedro 22nd October 2007, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Are you still running a CRT? The differences in quality are pretty massive between DVI and VGA on a TFT.
Yeah, it's a 24ish" CRT that I picked up from the graphics design department of ICI when they where bought out by Synetix so it's a fair few years old (and weighs a ton) but image quality is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
they will just need DisplayPort in the future because it'll be supported by both notebooks and desktop PCs.
You say that, but I bet it won't be the case. It's exceedingly hard to create an industry wide standard. My view is that it will just add another option and another chance for incompatibility unless it really is adopted by all manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
I certainly understand your scepticism, but this wouldn't be accepted by consumers if it wasn't backwards compatible with existing designs. If you go back to PCI-Express, that was "forced" onto the industry - I don't think the same will happen with DisplayPort, as you can handle backwards compatibility very easily.
I think I'm skeptical for fun some times, so don't take me too seriously :). Constructive criticism and all that...

RE: Audio and video in one cable.
It works for things like SCART/HDMI because the audio and video is always going to be coming from the same source, wheras in a PC, the graphics card and sound card will be separate, so I feel there should be two different cables.

RE: DRM/Encryption (as seen on HDMI but not VGA)
/paranoid
This is just another way to force DRM onto consumers! Burn them!
Tim S 22nd October 2007, 19:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
Yeah, it's a 24ish" CRT that I picked up from the graphics design department of ICI when they where bought out by Synetix so it's a fair few years old (and weighs a ton) but image quality is great.
Cool :)
Quote:
You say that, but I bet it won't be the case. It's exceedingly hard to create an industry wide standard. My view is that it will just add another option and another chance for incompatibility unless it really is adopted by all manufacturers.
AMD, Nvidia and Intel are all members of VESA and were in the initial DisplayPort promoters group. There you've got about 99 percent of the discrete and integrated graphics market. Intel will integrate three DisplayPort interfaces into its Montevina platform (due for release next year) and both AMD and Nvidia have been working to get their DisplayPort implementations on future graphics chips through certification.

Quote:
I think I'm skeptical for fun some times, so don't take me too seriously :). Constructive criticism and all that...
You're right, scepticism is one thing that everyone should have and I had it when I first learned about DisplayPort - I'm not quite as sceptical now, but have my reservations - backwards compatibility was my biggest worry and that's essentially been quashed with the selection of converters in development. :)
Quote:
RE: Audio and video in one cable.
It works for things like SCART/HDMI because the audio and video is always going to be coming from the same source, wheras in a PC, the graphics card and sound card will be separate, so I feel there should be two different cables.

RE: DRM/Encryption (as seen on HDMI but not VGA)
/paranoid
This is just another way to force DRM onto consumers! Burn them!
Both audio and content protection are optional parts of the spec and the latter requires a license - I guess you can expect a similar roll out to HDCP on DVI/HDMI. :)
walle 22nd October 2007, 20:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
I don't really see why we're moving on - it just seems like manufacturers want a new specification to fatten their wallets.
Well that’s precisely their intention, making money and creating a need when no need is present, so to speak. Reminds me a bit of the dreaded 3G system…not wanted and not needed. That aside; In terms of thinner screens, well; I rather have the manufacturers sober up and start improving the image quality rather than making them thinner. My old Viewsonic P227F CRT monitor still surpasses a TFT screen in terms of image quality…an embarrassment in so many ways really.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
I think I'm skeptical for fun some times, so don't take me too seriously :). Constructive criticism and all that...
Scepticism is a sign of intelligence as well as its a sign of a thougt process mate,(don't "swallow" every new "toy" presented) and ofcourse we as consumers should be darn sceptical, especially so when manufactures keeps insulting our intelligence. Now, any one in need for a 2000W power supply with christmas lights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
If you go back to PCI-Express, that was "forced" onto the industry - I don't think the same will happen with DisplayPort, as you can handle backwards compatibility very easily.
Not being forced is a matter of perception, innit? After all, how many main stream consumers were to bother about fixing the possible backward compability? I would argue that the numbers were to be very, very slim. And you know as well as I do that all to many people like as well as scream for new toys whether they need them or not.

cheers.

Note to self: calm down now and have a cup of tea :p
Tim S 22nd October 2007, 20:33 Quote
Of course it is a matter of perception, but one of the things that DisplayPort can do is to increase bit depths over and above what DVI can manage at high resolutions. If we think back a few years, the most popular display being purchased was 1280x1024... we're now looking at 1680x1050 being fairly typical, 1920x1200 is within the realms of affordability and 30" screens are around the price of 1920x1200 screens of yesteryear.

That said, there are far too many screens with 6bpc today - the millisecond myth is to blame for that. I think the minimum we should be using is 8bpc and above 10bpc, I don't think there will be many people that will be able to distinguish between 12bpc and 16bpc for example. 10bpc is right on the ragged edge of what's viewable by most human eyes, IMO.
500mph 22nd October 2007, 22:02 Quote
I remember reading about display port back in April and thought it would just another specification on the market. but I do think this might be a good idea. I'm not just sure yet. I'm waiting to see what this usb imagery is like. But if the display port would last for a good while, then it would be a great idea.
wuyanxu 22nd October 2007, 22:20 Quote
just moved to DVI :( and now they are having display ports?

man, i can't keep up.

2560x1600 is dual-link DVI, so i guess that if im a computer user who don't plan to have a 30inch monitor on my tiny desk, i'd be fine sticking to DVI?
Tim S 22nd October 2007, 22:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
just moved to DVI :( and now they are having display ports?

man, i can't keep up.

2560x1600 is dual-link DVI, so i guess that if im a computer user who don't plan to have a 30inch monitor on my tiny desk, i'd be fine sticking to DVI?

DVI isn't going anywhere fast and if displays come out supporting only DisplayPort, you would be able to grab one with a dongle. :)
vts 22nd October 2007, 23:10 Quote
What's the big deal if i can still connect all my old **** to it anyway, via a dongle?

oh.. apart from random expense.
Veles 23rd October 2007, 00:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by vts
What's the big deal if i can still connect all my old **** to it anyway, via a dongle?

oh.. apart from random expense.

It means a monitor can have one port on the back of it and it will be compatible with everyone's PC if they don't have DisplayPort on their GFX card, manufacturers could start making monitors with only DisplayPort now and anyone would be able to use it, which is a big + to it's adoption rate.

Video via USB is interesting though, I'd like to see a higher speed USB and more and more things using it, I wouldn't mind if the computer of the future had nothing but USB ports and a couple of high speed ethernet ports the back, would make life a lot simpler if everything plugged into the same port.
Hamish 23rd October 2007, 00:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by vts
What's the big deal if i can still connect all my old **** to it anyway, via a dongle?

oh.. apart from random expense.

likelyhood of future graphics cards and monitors coming bundled with convertors: probably very high
i've got a whole box of dvi->vga convertors from graphics cards

sounds good to me, backwards compatibility was going to be the only issue i could see with displayport but if it is literally just a free/cheapo dongle then fine :)
GoodBytes 23rd October 2007, 02:06 Quote
Still 60Hz... why not 85Ghz or 150Hz like Analogue? My CRT works fine with those! (I love you, CRT!)
It's just a slightly improved connector over DVI... I am totally against it, it will just create complications for the average user...
They will buy an LCD from the store, and go to try and plug it in, and poof no slot!

Sure the sells-man can inform him or her, but they will go "No port display, give me the normal stuff". So then it won't be adapted.
Anakha 23rd October 2007, 05:11 Quote
60Hz is because that's the refresh rate the rods in the eyes see at (The colour-receiving ones). However, CRTs are (supposed to be run at) 72Hz+ because the cones (The black/white peripheral vision parts of the eye) see at the faster rate.

LCDs, however, don't have a visible "Refresh" (As they don't rely on Persistence of Vision like CRTs), so they don't need the higher refresh to comfort the cones.

However, I don't think DisplayPort, or any other new display cabling format, will really take off until there's one cable that carries everything (Including power) that will give true plug-and-play convenience (As well as cutting down on clutter) there's little incentive for Joe Consumer to choose the new standard over the old ones that have worked for them 'til now.
GoodBytes 23rd October 2007, 06:21 Quote
About the Hz, right I know that, but I saw some LCD that allows to set the screen to 75 (choice of 60 or 75 on the windows panel). This was at a store, and I did not look more in details on the difference it offers. So I THOUGHT that it could help MAYBE reduce ghosting... I think their will always bee ghosting as long as it refreshes at 1ms white-black-white.
Some people say that right now you don't see anything (I don't know as I don't have an LCD), but it reminded me at the time before LCD's... people where saying that 75Hz refresh rate was more then enough to not see flickering... but it's SOOO NOT true. 85Hz is at the point you don't see a difference, and even then... 150Hz, NOW it looks like an LCD or any solid object on your desk. If you still got a high end CRT try 800x600 @ 150Hz if you can... it niiiiiiceee yet it makes thinks BIG (of course) its nice.


But then you will need a more powerful PSU, as it will be used to power up the monitor.
Moreover if you have a multi-function screen.... then you won't be able to use it unless your computer is turned on. Maybe you and I leaves our computer on 24/7... but the average person does not. But good thought.
EQC 23rd October 2007, 08:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
... On the desktop front, things are a bit simpler, but still there's DL DVI, DVI and VGA...

I'm excited about DisplayPort...but I'm disappointed that it won't be able to beat out DL-DVI's resolution in it's 1st generation. That's just sad.

Also: it sounds like DisplayPort is going to go through multiple versions too, right? Correct me if I'm wrong...but if I buy a first-generation DisplayPort graphics card, it'll only do about 2560x1600. But, the future generations in a year's time will be able to put out a higher resolution...and perhaps there will be a few generations before they max-out DisplayPort?

Isn't this going to be very similar to DVI vs. DL-DVI then? In a few years, are we going to have graphics cards and monitors with ports that look basically the same (ie: DisplayPort 1.1 vs 2.0 vs 3.0), but the graphics card's transmitter just can't push enough pixels to drive the monitor at spec?

If they've already got plans to build in new capabilities, I wish they'd just come to market with them in the first place instead of going through multiple versions. I'm kinda mad now that I can't take my "old" single-link DVI card and get a monitor at 1920x1200 or higher (I think mine's old enough that it only officially supports 1600x1200 at 60Hz). I don't game...so I don't want to spend money on a new GPU...all I really need is a new DVI transmitter on the video card.

HDMI is going the same way, too -- it's only been on the market for a couple years, really, but it's gone through a few upgrades in capabilities already.

I can see needing to upgrade the spec every 5-10 years when some new/unexpected/huge-leap feature or capability is needed...but planning to upgrade something as simple as a video connector specification every 18 months implies one of two things:

1) a planned, money-grubbing upgrade cycle
or
2) Manufacturers think that everybody's a gamer...and if the GPU can't push a game at a high resolution, then there's no reason for the card to support it. I wish manufacturers would figure out that some of us don't actually game...but we still dream about big monitors. I don't care if I can't run a game at a huge resolution, but I'd like my video card to be able to run windows at the resolution of top-end monitors in a few years.

Personally, I'd gladly pay an extra $50 for a graphics card just for the assurance that it'd be able to handle running Windows on a top-of-the-line monitor in 5 years...and I'm a "$50 graphics card" kind of guy, so that means I'm willing to pay double for some future proofing.

As it stands now, if I want to upgrade to a monitor larger than 1600x1200, I can get Dual-Link DVI now...but that's basically obsolete with Display Port around the corner. So, I can wait a few months for DisplayPort...but it'll probably cost a premium at first, and it's first generation will be obsolete and limit my monitor-buying options in another year. Just based on the principle of this situation, I'm willing to hang on to my little LCD until the potential for a real major upgrade is truly there...maybe it'll be worth it for me when DisplayPort will offer me 3840x2400@60 Hz with good enough color to watch some up-scaled HD movies... but I'm still wondering why manufacturers can't/won't deliver that capability right away.
Aankhen 23rd October 2007, 09:25 Quote
Needs moar UDI. :(
[USRF]Obiwan 23rd October 2007, 09:29 Quote
Why on earth do they want to display such high resolutions? I can barely see the tiny desktop fonts on my 20" lcd @ 1650 native. Better make displays that increases the size when increasing the res. A friend has a brandnew 17" laptop with native 1920x1200 res and its imposible to do anything on that res, so it is running on 1280 so he can actualy read what he is typing in his word document without sticking his nose to the screen.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums