Bits DisplayPort: A Look Inside

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/22/displayport_a_look_inside/1

There's a new display interface coming to town soon and we felt we needed know more about DisplayPort. After talking with some VESA members at IDF, Tim Smalley takes a deep dive into the technology and pops up on the other side...

 

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.

 

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>

 

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.

 

i think DisplayPort is an very good idea tis going to take 3-5 years before it probly takes off (users get new pcs)

 

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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!

 

Cool

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.

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.

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.

 

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:

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?

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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