backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by larson0699.. on Aug 8 at 3:49 AM
AMD had a next-generation GPU with DisplayPort running at the VESA PlugTest event

AMD this week demonstrated a next-generation graphics processor with a native DisplayPort interface – the first graphics processor to support the standard. The DisplayPort toting graphics processor is undergoing testing by the Video and Electronics Standards Association (VESA). The association is performing interoperability testing at its PlugTest event in Milpitas, Calif.

The AMD demonstration had the next-generation graphics processor output to a Genesis Microchip DisplayPort receiver. Display manufacturers such as Samsung are developing new display products using the Genesis Microchip DisplayPort receiver. Samsung plans to release a 30” LCD display with 2560 x 1600 resolution and 10 bits of color depth next year.

“Achieving this level of interoperability is the result of a long-time collaboration between AMD and Genesis Microchip,” said Alan Kobayashi, Vice President, DisplayPort and Monitor Marketing, Genesis Microchip. “Like AMD, we believe that the creation of DisplayPort is an industry milestone that will deliver incredible performance in displays and address the growing bandwidth concerns of any high-resolution audio and video application.”

VESA previously ratified the DisplayPort 1.1 standard last April. DisplayPort is an open standard with no licensing fees, unlike HDMI. The standard intends to unify and replace three existing standards – DVI, LVDS and VGA interfaces.

“As one of the founding members of the DisplayPort promoter group, and a very active VESA member, AMD has played a valuable role for more than four years now in the specification development of the DisplayPort interface,” said Bill Lempesis, executive director, VESA. “We congratulate AMD on achieving this tremendous milestone so soon after DisplayPort version 1.1 was ratified in April.”

AMD plans to release DisplayPort capable graphics cards in 2008. The company’s roadmap has R700 and RS780 products pegged with DisplayPort outputs. AMD is not alone with supporting DisplayPort. Intel plans to release its DisplayPort packing Eaglelake-G chipset next year during its usual chipset refresh. Dell also plans to release DisplayPort capable displays in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By cenobite9 on 8/2/2007 1:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
So is bandwidth between the display adapter and the display becoming an issue? I take it the 2560x1600 displays will become a common thing on people's desktops in the next few years... I just upgraded to a 22in widescreen display myself with 1680x1050 native resolution.




RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By FITCamaro on 8/2/2007 2:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
My thoughts exactly. Explain to me how DVI is limited in any scope at outputting to todays highest resolution displays.

VGA seemed to handle 2560x1600 just fine too.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Moishe on 8/2/2007 2:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
DVI does just fine as long as you have dual-link DVI on a 2560x1600. I think this is more about future proofing and I'm not opposed to it. Any idea about what the max resolution is that DVI can handle?


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 2:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's it. 2MP per link, whick works out to 2560x1600 for a dual-link connection.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Moishe on 8/2/2007 2:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
So the max res for the 30" displays out now is the max DVI can go? No wonder DisplayPort is needed, it's just a matter of time before we have commonly used higher res displays.

What is the max res on VGA?


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "What is the max res on VGA?"

Its an analog interface, so it doesn't have a max resolution per se, just the maximum bandwidth of the cable and analog circuitry. That bandwidth, though, is not just dependent on resolution, but the refresh rate you wish to drive the monitor at.

I know Barco Medical makes an analog VGA board capable of driving 5MP displays, but the ultra-highspeed RAMDAC it requires is obviously very expensive.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By idconstruct on 8/7/2007 11:38:22 PM , Rating: 1
Neither mine or my friends computer would allow me to output 1920x1200 through vga (we had to use dvi) ... so it has to be less than that


By larson0699 on 8/8/2007 3:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Nice. Didn't grandparent just say something on RAMDACs being proportional to max res?

The few GFX cards' retail boxes I've seen (not even recently--pre-DVI Rage 128 comes to mind) boast a maximum of at least 2048x1536.

I love how people dismiss tried and true standards because of one [in]experience. If you're really hurting for 1920+ with your Intel IGP (or bad drivers/cheap monitor with inept DDC), check the aforementioned and, for heaven's sake, avoid 3D apps until after getting that 8800/2900.

Cheers.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By m104 on 8/2/2007 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
DVI cant handle 2560x1600 - only dual-link DVI can handle that... I think the reason for this new port/cable type is that 120Hz monitors will be hitting the market soon - and that means these is a need for a bandwidth twice as big as that of the DVI (to run 1920x1200 at 120Hz


By InsaneScientist on 8/3/2007 2:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
Dual link DVI could handle 1920*1200 @ 120Hz. Just barely, but it could handle it.

Think about it for a second... the WUXGA resolution (1920*1200) at 60Hz is currently carried over a single link DVI connector.
By doubling the Hz, you double the reqired bandwidth, but that's okay since you double the available bandwidth of DVI by adding the second link. ;)


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Great Googly Moogly on 8/3/2007 5:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
DisplayPort can't do higher than 2560x1600 either IIRC. Maybe if it's possible to step down the colour depth. Most of the extra bandwidth over DVI/HDMI is reserved for the up-to-48 bit colour depth. 60 Hz needs to go. It's not fast enough a data rate (not talking about refresh rate here). No word on dual-link DisplayPort yet that I've heard...

Maybe it can do more at 24-bit colour depth, but not 120 Hz.


By idconstruct on 8/7/2007 11:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(not talking about refresh rate here)


?

Hz = Refresh Rate (In the context of monitors), 60 Hz = 60 Refreshes/Sec


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By InsaneScientist on 8/3/2007 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Technically the specification allows for one higher resolution over dual link DVI: WQUXGA (3840 x 2400)
The problem is that it's only at 30ish hertz (33Hz, IIRC), so most people don't touch on it.

If you're talking about being able to run at 60Hz, then yes, WQXGA is the max. :)

However, based on the specification, while a single link is capped at 165MHz (if you need more speed at that point you move to dual link), there is no cap on how fast a dual link DVI connection can be run. The only thing that would prevent you from running it faster is the quality of the components.
Of course, to run WQUXGA at 60Hz, you'd need to run a Dual link DVI connection at something near 300MHz... which probably won't happen. :D


By InsaneScientist on 8/3/2007 3:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Just re-read what I wrote, and realized I'm a little unclear on something.

I (personally) don't know if the specification actually defines allowed resolutions and such, and if it does, it probably doesn't include the one I was referring to.
What I ment was that you can run that resolution within the bandwidth defenitions of the DVI spec.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Targon on 8/2/2007 2:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
VGA was an analog standard, which requires a digital to analog and analog back to digital when using a digital display technology like a flat panel display.

When you go to digital, the resolution supported needs to be looked at, with HDMI just not being able to handle computer display needs going forward.

In addition to these issues, as others have mentioned, in order to really get higher resolutions on the larger panels, you need a dual-link DVI connection, which adds a bit of complexity(which most end-users just don't want to deal with). This is the reason for Display Port, because you shouldn't NEED to connect two data cables. Sure, you can, but it is a workaround to the limitations of DVI.

So, now we have a new standard that will hopefully handle the requirements of both HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, as well as computer users who expect a large display to be able to at least do what a small display can do. And THEN you have the issue of wanting things to work going forward.

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray really start to seem like a stepping stone to the next resolution standard for movies, rather than being a long-term solution. 720p seems weak compared to 1080p, but going to 1600 lines of resolution really won't take that long.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By IcY18 on 8/2/2007 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Dual-link DVI does not consist of connecting 2 DVI cables like you mentioned, it's one cable that is specified as dual link which allows the 2560x1600 resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI

Gives you a quick look at what the different DVI cables there.

Displayport will not be a replacement for HDMI also like you led to believe, it's PC focused.

Also Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are not a stepping stone for the next resolution standard in movies because 1080p is the resolution that film makers have been using for awhile now, we just haven't had HD discs/players to store and play the data, but now we do. You can count on TVs being able to display higher resolutions but film makers aren't advancing to 1600 lines as soon as you think.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 3:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "...because 1080p is the resolution that film makers have been using for awhile now...film makers aren't advancing to 1600 lines as soon as you think."

Eh? Most filmmakers are still using 35mm film, which has a resolution far above 1080p. Those films can easily be telecined to resolutions above 1080p...some already are.

For those engaging in digital cinematography, 1080p and 2K (which is essentially the same resolution) are the most common formats, but 4K cameras (4096x2160) are already hitting the market.


By InsaneScientist on 8/3/2007 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, (assumming that it's the same as in photography) 35mm film has a resolution that's roughly equivalent to 50 megapixels. :)


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By afkrotch on 8/4/2007 1:35:01 PM , Rating: 1
DisplayPort is an HDMI competitor. It's not PC focused. Why do companies want DisplayPort? Cause it's license free and of course, it can work as a pass through for DVI and HDMI, so a simple convertor would allow you to use an old HDMI TV or an old DVI monitor.

It has it's own content protection, can use HDCP, supports 1080p, can run audio on the same cable, and run on fiber, etc.

Ya...DisplayPort definitely isn't an HDMI competitor. *sarcastic*


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By paydirt on 8/2/2007 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, according to NASA or some other space scientists, color quality is much more important to the human eye than resolution. I'm guessing what this means is that a 50% gain in color quality is better than a 50% gain in resolution to most viewers.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By zsouthboy on 8/2/2007 3:54:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's the other way around. You should check your sources.

Human eye is more sensitive to edge (luminance) data than color (chromiance).

For example, JPEG compress splits the two, and stores the color data at a lower resolution than the luminance.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By djcameron on 8/2/2007 4:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting discussion... I seem to recall that back in the old days, 320x200x256 color video display looked better than 640x400x16 color video display.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By surt on 8/2/2007 4:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's really difficult to measure psychometrically. In your example, the jump from 320x200x256 to 640x400x16 is a 4x jump in pixels, at a 16x loss of colors, so you'd expect, given equal sensitivity, for that to be a net loss.

But sensitivity isn't equal, and the visual response to color and edge aren't purely linear functions either. As a simple example of this, no one can tell the difference between a 10 quadrillion color display and a 1000 quadrillion color display, because the 10 quadrillion color display fully saturates the visual spectrum (assuming reasonably sane design). But can anyone tell the difference between a 10 quadrillion pixel display and a 1000 quadrillion pixel display? Yes, potentially quite easily, because it depends on viewing distance (a 1000 quadrillion pixel display the size of the solar system will have quite large, blocky pixels).


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 12:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well 16 colors to 256 colors is a MASSIVE jump even in absolute terms. I don't think any increase in resolution could really compensate.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Spoelie on 8/3/2007 6:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
You're looking at it differently than what the original poster meant, even though he was wrong/unclear with linking intensity to resolution, since it is only one of the ways to save on chrominance. You are looking at resolution and amount of colors, while he was talking about intensity and color definition.

The amount of colors in computer specs do not define the colors alone, but also the shade of each color. A little bit darker red is a different color than a little bit brighter red, what this means is that both luminance and chrominance are joined together in counting the colors on the computer.

If you actually separate intensity from color, you get something like this: http://users.skynet.be/TailwinD/color.jpg

Differences in the left image are more easily spotted than in the middle image. So when they are joined together, the left image has a larger influence on what is perceived. That's why, if you separate luminance from chrominance, you can compress chrominance more, or store it in a lower resolution, without affecting image quality too much. This is what happens in the different video formats (YV12, YUV, ...) to save space. It is more important to spend bits on luminance.

In computer displays, thus RGB system, we just don't really talk about those Y and C separately.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By casket on 8/2/2007 10:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
"50% gain in color quality"
8-bit = 2^8 = 256 colors
12-bit = 2^12 = 4096 colors (16x increase, not 50%)


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By Spoelie on 8/3/2007 6:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
wrong. 8bit means 8bit per channel. 8bits for red, 8bits for green, 8bits for blue.

256*256*256 = 16.2 million colors

12bits per channel means 68.7 billion colors, which is well, a whole lot more than a thousand fold increase. However, for the human eye to see all those fine gradations of color, you'd have to be superman or something (well past the point of diminishing returns, so to speak).

Also, I think with color quality, what is meant is chrominance instead of amount of colors.


RE: Bandwidth becoming an issue?
By paydirt on 8/3/2007 9:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the lesson everybody. I think my point will hold that a JUMP forward in color (I guess it's a jump and not a step), will mean much more for image quality than steps forward in resolution. Regardless, it's cool that it is happening and interesting to follow from the sidelines.


By piroroadkill on 8/3/2007 10:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
By the way 256x256x256 = 16.7 million colours; 16.2 million colours is simply marketing speak for a 6 bit TFT with dithering


A big deal?
By mdogs444 on 8/2/2007 1:13:44 PM , Rating: 1
So we get another display connection that requires the end user to purchase new hardware (video card & monitor, perhaps "Displayport" cable if not compatible with HDMI), while allowing the video card manufacturer, motherboard manufacturer, and monitor manufacturer to save money from royalty fees, while making money for a new hardware type.

Forgive me, but I am not enthusiastic about this.




RE: A big deal?
By cochy on 8/2/2007 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgiven.

That prototype Dell Displayport LCD looked very nice. So I'm enthusiastic!


RE: A big deal?
By OrSin on 8/2/2007 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 1
HDMI is still pretty new and they want to change now. I'm ok with a change if it can last 5-10 years. Seriously how offen do people by big screens. I got 3 in my house now and have no intentions of getting another one unless one dies. And I have yet to have TV die on my in under 8 years.
My first big screen is a 65in Mitushu and its 9 years old and running great. I dont even have a HDMI and only have 1 component connection. We just need a standard to out last TV's. The move from Rabit, to Coax, to Composite, to S-video, to Component, to HMDI and now Display Port is going to damn fast.


RE: A big deal?
By omnicronx on 8/2/2007 1:57:59 PM , Rating: 4
I originally was thinking the same thing last week when DT had its first article on display port. And now i see why this is happening. Displayport is not a replacement for HDMI, displayport is the replacement for DVI, while the HDMI spec is really only meant for LCD TV's. Ask some people about their troubles with hdmi and outputting the resolution they want. its just not really meant to be run out of anything out side of 720p/1080i/1080p. Displayport will not contain audio either unlike its hdmi counterpart.

Essentially DVI has hit a wall in how much further it can go, it only supports up to 8bits of color where as diplayport(and hdmi for that matter) support up to 12bits of colour, which has really been the only downfall of LCD display's, not being able to reproduce all colours correctly like the old CRT displays could. Bandwidth is also increased, which increases the max resolution, and could possibly go higher than the current spec layed out for displayport.

Displayport in my mind is pretty much futureproofing for the average user, (just like 1080p is more than enough for the average user, and anything higher will be considered as useless by most of the public)

my 2c


RE: A big deal?
By BiuTech on 8/2/2007 2:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
“Like AMD, we believe that the creation of DisplayPort is an industry milestone that will deliver incredible performance in displays and address the growing bandwidth concerns of any high-resolution audio and video application.”

It consolidates three previous video ports, yes, but you are mistaken, as the article suggests like HDMI it will also support audio. A specification can be found here:

http://www.vesa.org/press/displayportaug.htm


RE: A big deal?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 2:29:46 PM , Rating: 3
> "Displayport will not contain audio either unlike its hdmi counterpart."

DisplayPort supports audio, it just doesn't require it. It also supports a data connection, which HDMI does not. Finally, it doesn't require a video signal, which HDMI does. All in all, its a much more flexible standard.


RE: A big deal?
By omnicronx on 8/2/2007 2:57:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
DisplayPort supports audio, it just doesn't require it.


very true, big error on my part.


RE: A big deal?
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 12:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
HDMI already can replace DVI. My computer is hooked up via a $10 cable with DVI on one side and HDMI on the other going into my projector. So you could have a component attached to your HDMI input that does not output audio. That's most TVs have an auxiliary analog audio input for the HDMI inputs. Also the PS3 will let you output video only via HDMI and the audio via analog for those us with projectors that only accept video from the HDMI source.


RE: A big deal?
By Gatt on 8/2/2007 4:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
"256k will be enough for anyone!" (Or something like that).

No telling what the future will bring, it's very likely that > 1080p will be desired down the road. Such as if the concept of Home Theater gets off the ground with screen measurements in feet instead of inches.


RE: A big deal?
By JimFear on 8/6/2007 4:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The move from Rabit, to Coax, to Composite, to S-video, to Component, to HMDI and now Display Port is going to damn fast.


How else are the companies going to squeeze more money out of the technoligcally stupid? People can be duped into spending near on £100 for an HDMI cable when they buy a new TV so its safe to say that most people are mugs and will buy into the trend, the whole people = stupid thing seems to be a running theme with my posting, I guess I'm a synical b*stard :)

p.s. Gosh damn, how much did a 65" TV set you back 9 years ago!?


RE: A big deal?
By BiuTech on 8/2/2007 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with another format war and a little competition? I don't see how this can hurt anything, if not drive innovation and help create better pricing for consumers.


RE: A big deal?
By Moishe on 8/2/2007 2:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
This is like complaining about getting rid of the floppy drive or the parallel port. Some tiny fraction of people will definitely be annoyed for 5 minutes, but most people will benefit and move on.

This will end up being a good thing and really the transition will be very painless.

My flatscreen now has VGA and DVI. I bet that drives up costs in some way. It's about time we get rid of VGA. My HD projector has a lot of practically useless connections, like composite and s-vid. At some point we have to move on and usually the transition takes years.

By the time dell got rid of the floppy I hadn't used one in something like 5 years. I think you'll be OK. :)


RE: A big deal?
By Flunk on 8/2/2007 2:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, some of us just got rid of our floppies. I used to have one for the express purpose of installing SATA drivers for Windows installs. Luckily Vista ditched that so I'm now free of it.

Expect DVI connectors to hang around for a good long time, and if anyone can make a displayport->DVI converter that would make this transition a lot easier to stomach.


RE: A big deal?
By qrhetoric on 8/2/2007 4:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing this to floppy drives? 3.5MM was used widely for what, 15 years? DVI has been used widely for about 3-4.


RE: A big deal?
By TSS on 8/3/2007 5:00:59 AM , Rating: 1
however i do not need to tell you sir how glad i was i still bought that floppy when my raid crashed and i had to reinstall some XP drivers. that would have been a bitch to figure out.

the point is that has been said about every standard. true, we can expect standards to come out sooner as resolution increases (we'll reach the gazillion pixels soon), but right now, there are 3. display port, HDMI and that other one that was failing a bit. now HDMI is already used, but has i belived 3 versions, 1.0-1.3. and i've heard a lot of problems arising switching between the 3 standards. displayport sounds like the gem this time, but it hasn't been implemented yet, making HDMI still more wide spread.

soon dell will feature it, monitors will be made and graphics cards/chipsets will also have the connection. but that's all still far away, giving HDMI more time to dig in. and if nobody buys LCD's with displayport or the chipsets/graphics cards, then it won't get accepted either.

all in all, the reason why people are complaining is not because they have to get rid of an old technology, but because there is no proper stable replacement.

at this point we cannot say which will be the next gen video output. we cannot say which is the next gen media. we cannot say what performance there is to be expected in 6 months time in the field of processors. currently, we have no clue on how the next gen vid cards will do their job, hopefully better then that last power hungry gen. people complain because the stability that the old generations we are told are obsolete had, isn't to be found in the next generation of hardware.

and to those thinking to counter that arguement, the article said that AMD was commended for getting displayport 1.1 up and running so soon after it was approved. how fast will 1.2 be implemented? and 1.3? will this follow the HDMI way, or will it stabilize? and is this going to be on every monitor, making it a real standard, or is this going to be a niche standard? your guess is as good as mine.


RE: A big deal?
By kirbalo on 8/2/2007 2:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
Display Port is a new digital display interface standard (approved May 2006, current version 1.1 approved on April 2, 2007) put forth by the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA). It defines a new license-free state-of-the-art digital audio/video interconnect, intended to be used primarily between a computer and its display monitor, or a computer and a home-theater system.

...Lower Cost...HDMI has BIG royalties...


RE: A big deal?
By omnicronx on 8/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: A big deal?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/2/2007 4:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "30k per company and 0.04$ (if they put the name HDMI on the ports/cables)"

Actually, its $10K/company (recently dropped from $15K) and $0.15 per device. The rate drops to $0.05 if they follow all the rules for display of the HDMI logo, and down to $0.04 if they also fully implement HDCP. Those rates are low, but remember you need at least 3 devices to display anything, and BOM costs typically get magnified by a factor of 3 at the retail level.

Still, I think the primary driver for DisplayPort isn't the royalties, but rather additional flexibility, and the fact that its an open, non-proprietary standard.


RE: A big deal?
By darkpaw on 8/2/2007 4:45:50 PM , Rating: 3
Unless you're talking about cables then BOM costs get increased by 100x at retail.


RE: A big deal?
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 12:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
www.monoprice.com my friend.


RE: A big deal?
By MonkeyPaw on 8/2/2007 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So we get another display connection that requires the end user to purchase new hardware.


When was the last time a new standard REQUIRED you to do anything? Let's see, USB was introduced back in 1996, yet PS2, serial, and parallel ports hung around for about a decade. SATA was introduced in 2003, yet virtually every board still ships with IDE ports, too. PCIe was introduced in 2004, yet boards still ship with PCI slots, and ATI and nVidia continue to make new AGP cards (DX10 is coming to AGP soon). DVI was introduced in 1999, and you can still run analog monitors on most graphics cards shipped to this day. About the harshest transition in the industry is memory, and even then you can find boards that support 2 different types. Oh, the humanity!


RE: A big deal?
By sxr7171 on 8/3/2007 12:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
You can run analog monitors on any card today because the creators of DVI had the foresight to include analog in the connector. As long as these new monitors also include DVI and HDMI things will be fine, but if they only include DisplayPort I wont be buying unless a $10 adapter exists for either DVI->Displayport or HDMI->Displayport.


Displayport
By mcloud777 on 8/2/2007 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think Displayport is a good direction for pc monitors. I see it as an upgrade to DVI not a replacement to HDMI.

I read also that it is backwards compatible with HDMI...




RE: Displayport
By Ajax9000 on 8/3/2007 3:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
To quote from the "DisplayPort Interoperability Guideline Version 1" which was released just over ten weeks ago:
quote:
...interoperability cannot currently be accomplished at the specification level, ...


As described in that document, backwards compatiblity requires a two part kludge:
1 > DVI/HDMI functionallity has to be built into the DisplayPort equipment (making it a "dual-mode" device)
2 > an active adaptor is required that converts the DisplayPort physical and electrial interfaces into DVI/HDMI (NB audio aside, DVI<>HDMI is a passive, purely physical adaptor).

Of course, doing this kills DisplayPort's supposed advantages of simpler implementation and lack of licensing fees ...

Stupid really


Yay, 10 bits/channel of color resolution
By emboss on 8/2/2007 5:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Pity LCD manufacturers are running in the opposite direction and ditching 8 bits/channel for 6 bits/channel.




By Miggle on 8/2/2007 11:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
hear hear!


Convergence
By Dactyl on 8/2/2007 10:48:15 PM , Rating: 3
What happens when we can't tell the difference between a monitor cable and a SATA cable?

What if I plug my hard drive into the monitor by mistake? Will it show 1s and 0s on the screen like in the Matrix?

Somebody stop the future. It's too confusing. I will stay with D-SUB for now.




Displayport
By mcloud777 on 8/2/2007 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 1
"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki