AMD demos first GPU with native DisplayPort 1.1 - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 3rd Aug 2007, 17:21

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/08..._displayport/1

AMD has semi-publicly demonstrated the world's first GPU with native DisplayPort support at VESA's PlugTest event in California.

Techno-Dann · 3rd Aug 2007, 18:05

Pardon my stupidity but how is yet another connector going to "unify and standardise display connectivity"? DVI seems to be a rather universal standard on new hardware, and with its ease of compatibility with VGA, I don't see how DisplayPort is going to do anything but make the market more complicated.

Bluephoenix · 3rd Aug 2007, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Techno-Dann

Pardon my stupidity but how is yet another connector going to "unify and standardise display connectivity"? DVI seems to be a rather universal standard on new hardware, and with its ease of compatibility with VGA, I don't see how DisplayPort is going to do anything but make the market more complicated.

seconded

Tim S · 3rd Aug 2007, 18:21

As stated in the article, DVI is not going to disappear but VGA is on its way out. The reason VGA hasn't disappeared thus far is because of its widespread adoption on notebooks - only the recent notebooks (and Apple's notebooks) have really started to push "digital" connectivity - my ThinkPad X60s, for example, is based on technology that's less than a couple of years old, but it still only has a VGA port.

I don't think VGA is going to start to disappear until DisplayPort arrives, as I am pretty sure that all of the big guns will be pushing DisplayPort next-generation notebooks. Monitor manufacturers will be the same too - removing VGA will help to cut costs of monitor production in the long run too.

The reason why DVI hasn't been particularly prominent on notebooks is because of the sheer size of the connector and associated cabling - it's not the easiest thing to fit on an Ultra Portable, for example. With DisplayPort, it'll be possible to implement a high-bandwidth connection so that you can drive larger displays with your notebook. Not only that, but it also delivers higher bandwidth than dual-link DVI, which means we can look forward to higher resolutions, or higher bit depths on the desktop front.

The latter, of course, is dependant on if and when Microsoft adds support for bit depths higher than 24-bit RGB (32-bit colour adds an 8-bit alpha channel), as HD TV technology is further on than PC display technology at the moment - there are TVs supporting Deep Colour (10-bit per channel) already on the market (or arriving soon), and PC displays are stuck at 6-bit at the low end and only the high end displays use 8-bit panels. It's actually quite sad to think that PC display technology is now lagging behind HD TV technology - the reason for that is the millisecond myth.

Snaek · 3rd Aug 2007, 18:32

I'd like to see the DisplayPort become standard. The higher bandwidth and smaller size are both advantages over VGA/DVI.

I'm pretty sure I saw DisplayPort to DVI and VGA adapters too, so if you get a new video card with these on it you won't need a new monitor.

Flyingsheep · 3rd Aug 2007, 18:35

High end PC monitors still sport higher resolutions than 1920x1080 though.

Zurechial · 3rd Aug 2007, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaek

I'd like to see the DisplayPort become standard. The higher bandwidth and smaller size are both advantages over VGA/DVI.

Higher bandwidth and smaller size, but are either necessary?

The majority of people aren't even on super-dee-duper HD yet (maybe they have some sense) and the majority of those who have it probably can't tell the difference between HD and less recent technologies, so I don't really see more bandwidth as being a decent justification for the extra hassle of a new connector/form-factor/standard.

Smaller size? Current connectors aren't exactly massive or cumbersome.

Just because something is 'better' in terms of specifications doesn't mean it's better in a realistic sense, nor does it mean it's necessary.

I'm not against progress when there are good reasons for it, but this stinks of "making something new for the sake of having something new", or perhaps "making something new for the sake of raking in money from the people who become convinced that they MUST have it...just like HD Video & Blu-ray/HD Discs"

"Your 8800 Ultra sucks because it doesn't have displayport. DVI is SO last week."

(The above post isn't targeted at you, Snaek, I just used your post as a reference for my views.)

zoom314 · 3rd Aug 2007, 19:19

Will this new port be supported by XP Pro or XP x64 or Just Vista? I'm not worried about other OSes of course.

Tim S · 3rd Aug 2007, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyingsheep

High end PC monitors still sport higher resolutions than 1920x1080 though.

At a loss of colour quality...

DXR_13KE · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:01

i like this displayport..... it has no fees like HDMI and is small...... and i do think DVI is massive, especially for laptops and cable routing.

Acehole · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:01

Doesn't HDMI solve the problem of large connectors though...I would imagine most people would prefer to have only one standard and HDMI isn't going to disappear anytime soon from HDTVs, plus its compatible with DVI so its painless enough to upgrade.

devdevil85 · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:25

Why not just use HDMI? I mean the R600 uses native HDMI 1.2 so..... or is it the licensing fee costs that are moving this connection?

Joeymac · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:38

HDMI 1.3 has the same bandwidth and colour capabilities as DisplayPort... and that can be doubled up like a dual DVI connection, so in fact it can exceed DisplayPort 1.1.

EQC · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:42

Long ago, when DVI made it's debut, we already had:

VGA with max resolution 2048 x 1536.

DVI came out with "single link" only, which had a maximum resolution of 1600x1200.

Granted, the connection was digital...but single-link DVI was, in a sense, a downgrade of VGA's resolution capabilities.

I think today, single-link DVI can put out 1920x1200 with some video cards...still a downgrade from VGA's resolution.

Later, dual-link DVI came along...but it's really only available on mid-to-high end video cards for the most part. Anybody looking for a bare-minimum type $40-$50 video card is stuck with single-link DVI or VGA if they want higher resolutions.

Dual Link DVI can put out 2560 x 1600.

There are monitors today (30" LCD's) that use this resolution.

What am I getting at? The Wikipedia article on DisplayPort does not specifically mention resolution capabilities beyond 2560 x 1600. It would be very very lame if the first DisplayPort video cards were not capable of resolutions beyond what dual-link DVI does now. It would be even more lame if they came out with "low-res" DisplayPort today, then updated it in a year or two for higher resolutions like they did with DVI, forcing anybody who wanted to benefit to go out and upgrade *again.* If I don't see specs beyond what Dual-Link DVI can do on the first DisplayPort hardware to market, then I'll know the whole point of DisplayPort is just more profit grabbing, by coming out with small upgrades every couple years rather than big upgrades on a more limited basis.

EQC · 3rd Aug 2007, 20:49

Some other things I noticed on the Wikipedia page for DisplayPort:

1) AMD seems to be a big supporter of DisplayPort

2) "Another competitor [of DisplayPort] is Unified Display Interface, a low cost compatible alternative to HDMI and DVI. However, the main supporter of UDI, Intel, has stopped the development of the technology and now supports DisplayPort."

In other words, Intel, in a way, stopped production on their own technology and joined forced with their arch-enemy AMD on a single format. Perhaps the HD-DVD and BluRay groups should have learned from this. After all, if Intel and AMD can cooperate and avoid a format war in the consumer marketplace, shouldn't Toshiba and Sony (among others) be able to do the same?

DXR_13KE · 3rd Aug 2007, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by devdevil85

Why not just use HDMI? I mean the R600 uses native HDMI 1.2 so..... or is it the licensing fee costs that are moving this connection?

i think it is more because of the license fees...

Tim S · 3rd Aug 2007, 21:57

I am pretty sure that DisplayPort can output 3840x2400 (i.e. 9 megapixels) at 60Hz.

EQC · 4th Aug 2007, 02:26

If DisplayPort brings 3840x2400 to market, I'll be very happy.

I always bring this up, but in addition to being a huge resolution, it's (well, technically 3840x2160 in 16x9) the perfect resolution for watching HD video -- it provides perfect integer scaling with 720 (factor of 3) and 1080 (factor of 2). Even a non-existent or mediocre scaling chip will allow any HD video to look good on such a screen. Imagine how cool things could look with a good scaler

.

Joeymac · 4th Aug 2007, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by EQC

If DisplayPort brings 3840x2400 to market, I'll be very happy.

I always bring this up, but in addition to being a huge resolution, it's (well, technically 3840x2160 in 16x9) the perfect resolution for watching HD video -- it provides perfect integer scaling with 720 (factor of 3) and 1080 (factor of 2). Even a non-existent or mediocre scaling chip will allow any HD video to look good on such a screen. Imagine how cool things could look with a good scaler

.

Well that's the point... It's called "Quad HD" and that is the new standard for ultra high end HDTV's. In Japan they already have such displays.

Bindibadgi · 4th Aug 2007, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by devdevil85

Why not just use HDMI? I mean the R600 uses native HDMI 1.2 so..... or is it the licensing fee costs that are moving this connection?

HDMI costs a licence fee on every single product you use it on, and on the specifications and intention to use it. You have to pay twice. (iirc)

Display Port is an open standard

3rd Aug 2007, 17:21	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	AMD demos first GPU with native DisplayPort 1.1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/08..._displayport/1 AMD has semi-publicly demonstrated the world's first GPU with native DisplayPort support at VESA's PlugTest event in California. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

3rd Aug 2007, 18:05	#2
Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pullman WA, USA Posts: 1,570	Pardon my stupidity but how is yet another connector going to "unify and standardise display connectivity"? DVI seems to be a rather universal standard on new hardware, and with its ease of compatibility with VGA, I don't see how DisplayPort is going to do anything but make the market more complicated. __________________ The intellitxt demon fell dead, Sir Tim's lance embedded in its heart. The fair land of Bit-Tech was free from its influence once more. And there was much rejoicing.

3rd Aug 2007, 18:21	#4
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	As stated in the article, DVI is not going to disappear but VGA is on its way out. The reason VGA hasn't disappeared thus far is because of its widespread adoption on notebooks - only the recent notebooks (and Apple's notebooks) have really started to push "digital" connectivity - my ThinkPad X60s, for example, is based on technology that's less than a couple of years old, but it still only has a VGA port. I don't think VGA is going to start to disappear until DisplayPort arrives, as I am pretty sure that all of the big guns will be pushing DisplayPort next-generation notebooks. Monitor manufacturers will be the same too - removing VGA will help to cut costs of monitor production in the long run too. The reason why DVI hasn't been particularly prominent on notebooks is because of the sheer size of the connector and associated cabling - it's not the easiest thing to fit on an Ultra Portable, for example. With DisplayPort, it'll be possible to implement a high-bandwidth connection so that you can drive larger displays with your notebook. Not only that, but it also delivers higher bandwidth than dual-link DVI, which means we can look forward to higher resolutions, or higher bit depths on the desktop front. The latter, of course, is dependant on if and when Microsoft adds support for bit depths higher than 24-bit RGB (32-bit colour adds an 8-bit alpha channel), as HD TV technology is further on than PC display technology at the moment - there are TVs supporting Deep Colour (10-bit per channel) already on the market (or arriving soon), and PC displays are stuck at 6-bit at the low end and only the high end displays use 8-bit panels. It's actually quite sad to think that PC display technology is now lagging behind HD TV technology - the reason for that is the millisecond myth. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

3rd Aug 2007, 20:01	#10
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,465	i like this displayport..... it has no fees like HDMI and is small...... and i do think DVI is massive, especially for laptops and cable routing. __________________ *Renegade X - 0.40 Release!* <---- CLICK!

3rd Aug 2007, 21:57	#17
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	I am pretty sure that DisplayPort can output 3840x2400 (i.e. 9 megapixels) at 60Hz. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

3rd Aug 2007, 18:32	#5
Snaek Multimodder Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 131	I'd like to see the DisplayPort become standard. The higher bandwidth and smaller size are both advantages over VGA/DVI. I'm pretty sure I saw DisplayPort to DVI and VGA adapters too, so if you get a new video card with these on it you won't need a new monitor.

3rd Aug 2007, 18:35	#6
Flyingsheep Minimodder Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25	High end PC monitors still sport higher resolutions than 1920x1080 though.

3rd Aug 2007, 19:19	#8
zoom314 Multimodder Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Yermo, CA, USA Posts: 174	Will this new port be supported by XP Pro or XP x64 or Just Vista? I'm not worried about other OSes of course.

3rd Aug 2007, 20:01	#11
Acehole Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Blackburn, UK Posts: 94	Doesn't HDMI solve the problem of large connectors though...I would imagine most people would prefer to have only one standard and HDMI isn't going to disappear anytime soon from HDTVs, plus its compatible with DVI so its painless enough to upgrade.

3rd Aug 2007, 20:25	#12
devdevil85 Hypermodder Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 884	Why not just use HDMI? I mean the R600 uses native HDMI 1.2 so..... or is it the licensing fee costs that are moving this connection?

3rd Aug 2007, 20:38	#13
Joeymac Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 221	HDMI 1.3 has the same bandwidth and colour capabilities as DisplayPort... and that can be doubled up like a dual DVI connection, so in fact it can exceed DisplayPort 1.1.

3rd Aug 2007, 20:42	#14
EQC Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CA Posts: 220	Long ago, when DVI made it's debut, we already had: VGA with max resolution 2048 x 1536. DVI came out with "single link" only, which had a maximum resolution of 1600x1200. Granted, the connection was digital...but single-link DVI was, in a sense, a downgrade of VGA's resolution capabilities. I think today, single-link DVI can put out 1920x1200 with some video cards...still a downgrade from VGA's resolution. Later, dual-link DVI came along...but it's really only available on mid-to-high end video cards for the most part. Anybody looking for a bare-minimum type $40-$50 video card is stuck with single-link DVI or VGA if they want higher resolutions. Dual Link DVI can put out 2560 x 1600. There are monitors today (30" LCD's) that use this resolution. What am I getting at? The Wikipedia article on DisplayPort does not specifically mention resolution capabilities beyond 2560 x 1600. It would be very very lame if the first DisplayPort video cards were not capable of resolutions beyond what dual-link DVI does now. It would be even more lame if they came out with "low-res" DisplayPort today, then updated it in a year or two for higher resolutions like they did with DVI, forcing anybody who wanted to benefit to go out and upgrade again. If I don't see specs beyond what Dual-Link DVI can do on the first DisplayPort hardware to market, then I'll know the whole point of DisplayPort is just more profit grabbing, by coming out with small upgrades every couple years rather than big upgrades on a more limited basis.

3rd Aug 2007, 20:49	#15
EQC Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CA Posts: 220	Some other things I noticed on the Wikipedia page for DisplayPort: 1) AMD seems to be a big supporter of DisplayPort 2) "Another competitor [of DisplayPort] is Unified Display Interface, a low cost compatible alternative to HDMI and DVI. However, the main supporter of UDI, Intel, has stopped the development of the technology and now supports DisplayPort." In other words, Intel, in a way, stopped production on their own technology and joined forced with their arch-enemy AMD on a single format. Perhaps the HD-DVD and BluRay groups should have learned from this. After all, if Intel and AMD can cooperate and avoid a format war in the consumer marketplace, shouldn't Toshiba and Sony (among others) be able to do the same?

4th Aug 2007, 02:26	#18
EQC Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CA Posts: 220	If DisplayPort brings 3840x2400 to market, I'll be very happy. I always bring this up, but in addition to being a huge resolution, it's (well, technically 3840x2160 in 16x9) the perfect resolution for watching HD video -- it provides perfect integer scaling with 720 (factor of 3) and 1080 (factor of 2). Even a non-existent or mediocre scaling chip will allow any HD video to look good on such a screen. Imagine how cool things could look with a good scaler .