Slashdot Mirror
Displayport V1.2 To Take Giant Leap Over HDMI
An anonymous reader writes "With HDMI becoming increasingly common, Displayport has been slow to emerge as a widely used connection interface, but a plethora of new features in the new v1.2 standard could see that change. As well as doubling the data rate of the existing v1.1a standard to 21.6 Gbps, the update allows for multiple monitors to be connected to a single Displayport connector and adds support for transporting USB data at up to 720Mbps, enabling embedded webcams, speakers and USB hubs over a single cable. Ethernet data is also supported. The improved data rate will allow for richer, larger and higher resolution displays, and the new version is also backward compatible with the current display technology, so all the ports, cables and devices will be interchangeable, although they will revert to the lowest common denominator."
HDMI is fine
Ethernet is fine
No more "super cables" for the sake of another super cable so i have to replace everything i own just to run a damned super cable.
Thanks.
Can't I just have a general-purpose 21.6Gbps hardware interface, with "supplemental built in support" for any video-specific items?
Sure, if I need 21.6Gbps for video, great, but if I don't, it sure would be nice to use the same wire to run arbitrary data between my data-storage box and my set-top box or security system or set-top box and a TV or other equipment.
Oh, yes, I know about 10+Gbps Ethernet equipment. I figure though if this is going to be priced for the home market, it will likely be more cost-effective than super-speed Ethernet over short distances.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I for one am very glad to be getting rid of HDMI/DVI/VGA cables and have just one cable to rule them all! Display port is a step in that direction! Yeah for supercable!
This is my sig.
I wonder how long it will last as the "standard" with Light Peak allegedly only a year away? Source: http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm
II aamm ppoossttiinngg tthhiiss ppoosstt iinn 33DD ffoorr tthhoossee ooff yyoouu wwiitthh DDiissppllaayyPPoorrtt vv11..22 33DD SStteerreeoossccooppiicc ddiissppllaayyss.. HHeelloo!!
shouldn't fiber be the ultimate? That way the speed/capacity/value add is just increased by improving the speed of the bitrate?
I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but not mentioning them at all in the summary is a bit... crude. Also, here's a list of all the new stuff (taken from http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/11/displayport-1-2-validated).
* Doubling bandwidth mostly to support 3D: 21.6 Gbits/s.
* Connect even more monitors from a single DisplayPort. Dedicated hubs should soon be available.
* As for the HDMI, transport USB data between a computer and a display, supporting Display USB functions such as a webcam and USB hub.
* Connect to display with 3840 x 2400 resolution at 60Hz, or a 3D display (120Hz) at 2560 x 1600.
* Audio Copy Protection and category codes
* High definition audio formats (such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all BD formats,etc.)
* Synchronization assist between audio and video, multiple audio channels, and multiple audio sink devices using Global Time Code (GTC)
DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Has Monster started producing these yet? I cant wait to get some high-quality cables!
All my cables are obsolete again!
It's very nice technically. And it'll be useful in specialized scenarios. But it's not going to touch HDMI in terms of installbase. HDMI is the de facto standard and everything already supports it. My cable box, Xbox 360, TV, laptop, desktop and dual monitors are all HDMI. I don't need to go introducing another standard into that to have wires desktop-monitor-monitor instead of desktop-monitor for both (same number of wires, just different configuration) or to save having a wire to the USB hub in my monitor (which my monitors don't have because I'd never use it anyway).
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Our TVs were becoming too consistent, we were due for a major change. One thing you can guarantee with TV tech is they will make sure that it is obsolete the next year. It is just good business.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
But I doubt if it will gain traction....depends on if laptop/netbook maker.
I bet we would hardly see that in Desktop - because if it includes Video, Ethernet, USB, Sound so and so in a single cable, it must come from a single piece of hardware. Display card alone can only produce Video. So only integrated Motherboard could squeeze all these in a single port, and it's unlikely to see ATI/Nvida to include USB, Ethernet and such on their standalone PCI-E display cards.
The multi-monitor over a single cable is a something I am looking forward to though.
I really hope that we'll finally get monitors that switch both the video and the USB at the same time, serving has a keyboard / mouse / video / speaker switch in one go. I hate that I need to have multiple keyboards and mice at work for all the computers around my desk.
I remember this mess, where SCSI devices would be connected as a series, and a single slow component would silently downgrade the chain to the slowest speed. I wonder if they've duplicated the stupid termination problems as well? And the dozen different types of connectors?
One of the big ones, a reason that Display Port was developed to begin with, is HDMI needs additional chips/control circuits on the transmitting and receiving end to deal with encoding and decoding. Display Port is directly compatible with the display panels themselves and as such needs less hardware. It can be used internally in a laptop as the bus to the integrated display, and as output to another display. All in all it equals the ability to make smaller and slimmer displays because there's less in them.
Another somewhat related is Display Port doesn't cost any royalties. HDMI does. Added together it can lead to reduced costs. Less stuff in the display and less licensing fees equals less cost.
The bandwidth thing is a potential issue too. Even HDMI 1.4 doesn't have near as high a bandwidth (1.4 is actually the same bandwidth as 1.3). Now it doesn't matter a whole lot at the moment, but could in a few years. If we see more high refresh displays, which are useful for 3D and also look nicer, as well as higher resolutions we are going to hit in to bandwidth limits. Would be good to have a connector that is going to scale up to those.
...why we don't just do all this crap over an optical link?
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable. If they can't get the cable/connector price down to a real low level, I don't see it having any other use. I guess it would be kind of neat to have your monitor act as your docking station, but that isn't exactly earth-shattering.
Why is it called "Displayport" if it's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well? Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
HDMI needs additional chips/control circuits on the transmitting and receiving end to deal with encoding and decoding. Display Port is directly compatible with the display panels themselves and as such
...can't display motion pictures published by six American companies. Home users who expect to watch high-definition feature films will choose an interconnect that does "encoding and decoding" because the publishers of feature films on high-definition home video demand "encoding and decoding" for digital restrictions management. Sure, DisplayPort 1.1 and later allow for DPCP, but then you lose the advantage of no "encoding and decoding".
My "Display" has a webcam and speakers. It is not some futuristic device.
It would be nice if it only needed one cable instead of three to hook it up to the computer.
This sounds familiar - some of the old PowerMacs had this crazy 45 pin connector that "...incorporated capabilities for video out, video in, audio out, audio in, and the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB)" (http://kan.org/6100/graphicshardware.html#hdi45). The new Displayport sounds like a modern take on an old, er, classic?
It's not my fault - greatness was thrust upon me.
Is it a lack of engineering foresight, or is it a cable war with companies jockeying for position?
I've noticed that new Dells are now coming with DisplayPort, and discovered that Dell was one of the instigators.
Another unrelated observation: this could obsolete USB, and thus USB thumb drives, and thus yet another data storage format becomes oprhaned. This was inevitable. USB has had a good 14 year run so far. It couldn't last forever, despite what people thought about USB "being different this time" regarding being able to access old data -- that somehow it was going to be different from floppies and tapes.
Okay, I have a new rule: You're not allowed to define a new standard until after you've thought about how people will migrate to it from their existing stuff.
Once upon a time, we had VGA. This was a pretty simple analogue signal, which was great for driving a CRT. At high resolutions it got a bit blurry though and it was a bit silly to convert a digital signal to analogue and back for displaying on a TFT. So then we had DVI. The DVI connector incorporated the VGA signal as well as a new, digital, one. If you got a new display that supported DVI then you could connect it to your old computer with a very cheap (i.e. containing no electronics) adaptor. Then, when you got a new video card that supported DVI, you just threw away the adaptor and used the digital signal.
After a while, most things used the digital signal, so you started getting DVI-D devices, where the analogue pins weren't connected to anything. Then came HDMI, which used exactly the same signal as DVI-D. You could, once again, connect HDMI devices to DVI-D devices with a trivial adaptor. Because these adaptors are cheap, a few months after they're introduced you can usually find someone who has one if you need one and forget yours.
But now we have DisplayPort. It is digital, but it uses a completely different kind of signal to HDMI / DVI-D. If you want to connect a DisplayPort device to something that only supports VGA or HDMI then you need an expensive adaptor that decodes a frame in one format into a buffer then reencodes it in the other format.
So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind. This immediately eliminates two of the big advantages of DisplayPort: no license fees and simpler electronics. Add to that the fact that you have three kinds of connector for DisplayPort (DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort and Micro DisplayPort), so you probably need an adaptor anyway, just to plug one DisplayPort device into another, and it's easier to just use HDMI.
This is a shame, because DisplayPort is a much better spec than HDMI.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
When the laptop you buy in 2010 comes with a connector from 1987 you know your standards body isn't working. Yet, VESA tries and tries again. I expect DisplayPort to join DVI and VLB on the trash heap.
Am I the only one who looked at the "onetorulethemall" tag and couldn't decide whether it was a Tolkien reference, or a reference to the fact that I would have to buy something (go to the Mall) for this new port?
Not that it matters, I only have one device in my house with an HDMI connector. It's the new computer I just built. But my 24 inch monitor uses the VGA port, so the HDMI is covered up with the little plastic dustcover to keep it from getting dirty, just in case I ever decide to use it. Same with the digital video plug. The analog port easily supports 1080p output, and every frame looks like a work of art. Why would I want to spend more? I have audio out, and I have Ethernet. Just on separate cables, which works just fine for me.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
For those of us with DisplayPort notebooks... Does this require a hardware upgrade or is it a protocol/software-only upgrade?
If it can throw enough power to support a decent sized LCD (You can run a 4 inch LCD or probably a medium sized OLED display on the 5v of a USB hub), it would be golden.
I quite like the idea of a monitor with a built in usb hub that has only one wire leading to the pc. No extra power cables to run, you can plug your mouse, keyboard, webcam and thumbdrive in to the monitor without all that wire clutter and having to bend over and move stuff out of the way to reach the box.
shouldn't fiber be the ultimate? That way the speed/capacity/value add is just increased by improving the speed of the bitrate?
Intel is working on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak
now if it also supplied around 60~90 watts of power we could have a standard cable for a laptop docking station
Steve Jobs
is an MPAA boss himself. When Disney bought Pixar, he became the single biggest individual shareholder in The Walt Disney Company, and he's on Disney's board of directors.
Are still DRMed out the wazzoo.
Computers are supposed to make life easier. Leave it to the soul-suckers to design computers that actively fight against their owners.
Whatever you do, please don't let these people team up with the military divisions of iRobot or Foster-Miller. The end result of robots + guns + don't trust owners could be deleterious to our health.
coding is life
Fiber is a real possibility, but then all the companies would not have future upgrade paths. And that is important.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is displayport any better than HDMI for long runs? The maximum certified distance for HDMI 1.3 category 2 is around 40 feet (although real-world you might do better than that).
For those of us with front projectors, the ability to handle reasonable distances is a real factor.
Displayport is already obsolete. Fiber optics will take over.
And Appl.. err. Intel calls it Light Peak (how appropriate).
VGA sucks if you use an extension cable.
With digital video you can use a nice long extension cable with no loss of quality.
Price? Most everything comes with both connectors nowadays. Even the super cheap video cards. If price mattered they would not use both.
VGA connectors are ENORMOUS. Mini Display port is a nice tiny little connector that fits unobtrusively on a laptop.
DisplayPort 1.1+ includes HDCP just like HDMI does. It is enabled on all Apple products, and Blu-ray manufacturers are required to enable it as well. Thus any display manufacturer that wants to work with those segment of the markets will also include HDCP support.
They can't be physically unplugged, but they *can* be covered
Version 1.1 of DisplayPort added HDCP support.
Ironically, he's just about right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob_and_tube_wiring
Maybe VLB... but DVI has been on every computer for at least 4 years, as well as being the format for HDMI.
I'd say DVI is overwhelmingly the format of choice? Trash heap?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Recently, when I went electronics shopping, I noticed that all the TVs on display were hooked up by coax, and that HDMI cables are annoyingly expensive. Could lossy compression be a way to deliver higher quality video over lower cost cables? After all, compression processors obey Moore's Law, cables don't. If video cabling used, say, H.264, or maybe JPEG2000 to preserve a higher quality colorspace, we could perhaps get away with using cheap USB cables for video connections. Viable?
Honestly, I don't care what the max bandwidth is or what the standard is for that matter. Price defines what hardware & cables I buy. If the combination of the hardware and cables is too much, the I regress to older tech. Yes, it would be nice to have one cable running to more than one monitor or an encrypted WiFi signal, but I'm not going to spend an arm & a leg for the tech.
With digital video you can use a nice long extension cable with no loss of quality.
Have you ever actually tried this? DVI and HDMI are balanced connections, and they were never designed for long runs-more than 6 feet will sometimes get "sparkle" from digital artifacts. VGA works much better for long runs, although it's preferable to break it out into 5 full sized coax cables. This is not an option with HDMI, and that's a big reason why a lot of installers hate messing with it.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Perhaps you are looking at desktops and more expensive laptops. Most laptops I see still come with VGA, even though the display will be a digital one in most cases.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
TV news is dying? I don't remember reading anything like that on Netcraft. Until advertising budgets for independent online news exceed those for TV news plus the online affiliates of TV news (e.g. cnn.com), reports of the death of TV news are exaggerated.
Most projectors in offices take VGA, so if you have place/money for one connector on your laptop you put VGA on it.
What is it about computer science? An article on encryption will have dozens of thoughtful answers. Anything doing with electrical engineering will have lots of jokes and people assuming the world is all like the programs they write.
I would like to see DisplayPort become more popular. It has a number of distinct advantages over HDMI.
1. The connector is designed to latch into place so it's more robust. The latching method is a lot better.
2. Multiple display support.
3. It's AC coupled instead of DC coupled. This is useful in large installations (I've dealt with installations where DC coupling was quite challenging due to power issues).
4. Higher data rate.
5. No licensing fees.
6. It's micro packet based and can do things like update only specific regions on a display. It allows for more flexibility in what type of data is sent over it. For example, it shouldn't be difficult to add an alpha channel without breaking the existing spec.
7. Each channel is independent, not dedicated R, G or B like HDMI. Each channel has its own clock. As more bandwidth is needed, more channels can be added.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
The thing is, yes displayport is the better spec, no licensing fee, less complex. Awesome.
Infact I've even seen them on some newer PC's of late, this is great, it might just make it.
Problem is, we're going BACK to the bloody 1990's with different specs for the PC display and the TV display.
ARGH.
I want to see displayport on my PC and my PC LCD and my loungeroom 65" Plasma, when (ever?) will this happen.
I do not want 2 different standards (HDMI 1.4 'vs' DPort 1.2) it's just going to be a mess, again.
Isn't that a large pack of belligerent high school girls?
They are sometimes sold as such in shops, but they don't have any Compact Disc logo anywhere on the product
Then shops might be doing false advertising. Ask the sales associate "This is a CD, right?"
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Have you ever actually tried this? DVI and HDMI are balanced connections, and they were never designed for long runs-more than 6 feet will sometimes get "sparkle" from digital artifacts.
No issue with the 10 foot DVI to HDMI cable I bought from Fry's for $15 last month.
Have a heart! geez... Wouldn't goatse be brutal enough?
I've got a Dell desktop driving a Panasonic plasma display over 30' of DVI cable. It works fine, and has for over a year. The cable itself more closely resembles a garden hose than something that you'd hook up a monitor with, but that's just because the conductors are bigger, and presumably also include more shielding. It is otherwise not very special (having come from Monoprice).
Meanwhile HDMI can easily, and reasonably cheaply, be repeated to absurd lengths. I, however, tend to avoid it when possible for installations, because I simply loathe the combination of big, heavy wire and friction-fit connectors.
I dislike VGA because of the difficulties of getting the pixel alignment correct and keeping it that way, and the inherent errors induced by the extra DA -> AD stages. I find it only useful in that it is universal.
So, DVI it is. Perhaps there will come a day when I get a job cursed by sparkles, but it hasn't happened yet.
Kid-proof tablet..
http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp
from the link:
Ask Me About... The 80's!
USB 3.0 is about to make it into mainstream this year and it has a 4.8Gbit per second speed. It seems to me that since USB 3.0 is now golden and read to go, then it should be supported as opposed to the measly 720Mbps provided by this spec.
Let's face it, display port is about video. It should be possible to transmit high definition video to the PC over the USB port. High definition video as defined by SMTPE requires 3.0Gbps, USB overhead will easily add an additional 25% on top of that. So, USB 3.0 is a requirement for something interesting.
If it requires a different cable to do it, oh well, get it over with already. After all, you still have to special order display port cables most of the time anyway.
Well, my laptop is too thin to have anything as bulky as a VGA connector, so there is a mini displayport socket and a dongle to convert to VGA... works.
If the TV manufacturers had decided to use SDI as is used in professional production houses, you could get 1080p via one coaxial cable with no signal loss until you get into the 100s of feet, and daisy-chain capability.
But instead, computer cable manufacturers came up with DVI and HDMI, which are stupidly inferior in terms of signal length and complexity of cables. The hardware in the devices also has to be a lot more complicated as well. HDMI is a lousy interface, any way you slice it.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I'd forgotten all about SDI.
I just gave it a good once-over, and it looks pretty cool, as if it were designed by people who want to actually use the stuff for useful things, instead of folks who are trying to be actively hurtful.
Kid-proof tablet..