1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD demos first GPU with native DisplayPort 1.1

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 3 Aug 2007.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
  2. Techno-Dann

    Techno-Dann Disgruntled kumquat

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    27
    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.
     
  3. Bluephoenix

    Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon?

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    968
    Likes Received:
    1
    seconded
     
  4. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    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.
     
  5. Snaek

    Snaek New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    204
    Likes Received:
    9
    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.
     
  6. Flyingsheep

    Flyingsheep New Member

    Joined:
    26 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    High end PC monitors still sport higher resolutions than 1920x1080 though.
     
  7. Zurechial

    Zurechial Elitist

    Joined:
    21 Mar 2007
    Posts:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    99
    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. :confused:

    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.)
     
  8. zoom314

    zoom314 Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    202
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will this new port be supported by XP Pro or XP x64 or Just Vista? I'm not worried about other OSes of course.
     
  9. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    At a loss of colour quality...
     
  10. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    364
    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.
     
  11. Acehole

    Acehole Member

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. devdevil85

    devdevil85 New Member

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    924
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  13. Joeymac

    Joeymac New Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. EQC

    EQC New Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. EQC

    EQC New Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    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? ;)
     
  16. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    364
    i think it is more because of the license fees...
     
  17. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
    I am pretty sure that DisplayPort can output 3840x2400 (i.e. 9 megapixels) at 60Hz. :)
     
  18. EQC

    EQC New Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :).
     
  19. Joeymac

    Joeymac New Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    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
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page