backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on Dec 10 at 12:46 PM

AMD readies DisplayPort equipped RV635 for early 2008

ATI hasn’t exactly flourished since it was purchased by chipmaker AMD. ATI market share continues to drop for discrete products while NVIDIA posts record profits.

The most recent launches from ATI, the HD 2900 GT came without much of a whimper, though the HD 3850/3870 cards that were launched last month performed decently. The one thing that AMD has going for it recently is competitive price points.

HotHardware has its hands on a new ATI graphics card, the RV635 to be exact, and the card comes equipped with DisplayPort. In addition to the DisplayPort interfaces, the card includes a DVI-D port as well. DailyTech first reported in August of 2007 that ATI was going to launch DisplayPort equipped R700 and RS780 graphics cards in 2008.

At this time, there are no DisplayPort monitors on the market, but as DailyTech reported in July of 2007, Samsung will have DisplayPort LCDs ready about the same time the graphics card hit market. HotHardware says they are testing the card with an unreleased DisplayPort equipped LCD, but don’t name the brand used.

The most interesting feature of DisplayPort equipped video cards is the ability to daisy-chain displays with only one connection from the video card to your displays. The new DisplayPort interface has a higher bandwidth and the ability to carry 8-channel 24-bit audio as well as auxiliary communications devices like microphones.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Daisy chain
By Etern205 on 12/6/2007 5:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Any ideas how many display port monitors can be hooked up to s single port?

This is what they said with USB, you can dasiy chain up to 128 devices using a single port, but when you tried like 3 to 4 USB devices the port poops out because there isn't enough power from the port itself and a external power adapter is required.




RE: Daisy chain
By Bluestealth on 12/6/2007 5:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is also the issue of max bandwidth that the system will allow devices to use, and the fact that very few device manufacturers have actually offered the ability to daisy chain your devices.


RE: Daisy chain
By ceefka on 12/6/2007 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 5
I don't believe DP was meant to power the LCD, so with their own power supply I guess you won't see that trouble.

Current and bandwith on a physical USB port is assignable if your BIOS allows it. I have never daisychained any USB devices, though. Only FW.

I like that daisy chaining. It reduces the clutter with multiple screen setups.


RE: Daisy chain
By Etern205 on 12/6/2007 6:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Xbit previously tested out a Samsung USB monitor and they got a pic showing multiple monitors hooked up to a single usb port.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/sam...


RE: Daisy chain
By Bluestealth on 12/6/2007 9:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
USB monitors make piss poor displays in my experience. The bandwidth is just too low. As the article states... there is absolutely no 3d. You should see the usb display adapters that attempt 3d... its quite entertaining.


RE: Daisy chain
By MGSsancho on 12/7/2007 9:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
that would be because the #D work is done in software thus no acceleration at all. sometimes people need the extra displays ti display data. while and 3D work is done on their primary display


RE: Daisy chain
By Bluestealth on 12/6/2007 9:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
My point was not that you can't daisy chain devices, but that you will never daisy chain 128 or probably more than 12 ever, unless they are devoid of logic and use little power. I should have made this clearer I guess.
Daisy chained stackable drives seems like a great use of the ability, but it is one of the only ones I can think of.


RE: Daisy chain
By ceefka on 12/7/2007 5:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I see and agree. 128 is a theoretical and ridiculous number. Who has that many USB devices, let alone connected at one time?

It's the same with FW. 63 devices max. I have 4 FW devices: DV-cam, FW ext HDD, 2 ext soundcards. Ultimately you run out of bandwidth long before you reach #63.

I think I'd have multiple Gb network drives before stackable USB/FW-drives. Even then it will not be the max theoretical number.

I wonder if that display port can scale itself. Having two screens displaying the same content should be less demanding then two screens expanding the view. Does it require a heavier card to have 3 screens?


RE: Daisy chain
By StevoLincolnite on 12/7/2007 9:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
I personally have an External DVD burner, External 320gb HDD, a USB fan, USB Webcam, USB Keyboard cleaner, USB Microsoft Headphones, USB Microphone, USB Snes Controller, USB PS1/2 controller, USB Nintendo 64 controller and an Xbox one as well, and a USB laptop cooler also, and a coffee cup holder that keeps my coffee hot :)

Now the issue for me was I had to buy a self powered USB hub, as I only have 1 Functional USB port out of 3 on my laptop (I bought the laptop because of limited desktop space and I wanted to conserve power), they are all connected all powered and no issues what so ever, mind you this isn't exactly daisy chained...
And I don't have lagg issues either, or anything in that remark, one thing I would like was more bandwidth to my USB HDD which takes up two USB ports on its own.

Maybe we might get the USB 3 spec eventually, where they don't use craptastic plastic bits that break off easily inside.


RE: Daisy chain
By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 6:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
On http://www.displayport.org/ they say that DP supports one, two or four highspeed serial links.

I would guess upto 8, depending on resolution and total bandwidth across the bus.


RE: Daisy chain
By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 6:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, specs say 10 monitors.


RE: Daisy chain
By ninjit on 12/7/2007 4:18:34 AM , Rating: 4
USB was never designed for daisy-chaining, it was developed with a star-topology in mind (nested hubs).
So it's more like a tree-structure.

Firewire (IEEE 1394) is the one that supports daisy-chaining.


So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
By Goty on 12/7/2007 9:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
HDMI was not designed for use in PCs.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 9:58:35 AM , Rating: 3
DisplayPort is an open standard, HDMI is not. DisplayPort supports a higher bandwidth, optional video data (which HDMI does not), a wider display refresh range, adds a highspeed dedicated channel for communicating setup information, color profiles, or other data between display and adapter, and allows for fiberoptic or RF connections as well.

For computer displays, DisplayPort is significantly more flexible than HDMI. Is that worth paying a buck for an extra port on your video card? For me, it is.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Whats the need for a new cable?"

To allow for fewer cables, by daisy chaining. DisplayPort cables also have a power pin, to support adding a repeater or powered adaptor.

> "hdmi can carry 10.2gb of data, display port 10.8. Woo big differance."

Single-link HDMI supports 4 Gbps. Single-link DisplayPort is 10.8. A dual-link DP variant is already in the works. Furthermore, HDMI can't handle refresh rates under 50hz. Displayport can handle anything down to zero, allowing for native driving of 24fps displays.

But toss all that aside-- the dedicated data capabilities and daisy chaining of DisplayPort are reason enough to want the standard. My current three-monitor setup requires six cables-- 3 power, 3 video. 7 if I wanted audio. I can replace that with ONE cable with DisplayPort.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By retrospooty on 12/7/2007 11:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the price would be. Component and HDMI cables are rediculously priced already (for quality products). I bet a 3 LCD display port cable is $150+ easy.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By Spuke on 12/7/2007 11:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
A good 1.5 ft 28AWG HDMI cable costs less than $4. Anymore than that is a ripoff.


By retrospooty on 12/7/2007 11:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
thats alot cheaper than I thought... But still we are not talking about a single 1.5 foot cable, we are looking at at 3 LCD system, it will need some serious length, 3 connectors, and high quality shielding to be able to deal with all that data.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 12:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "daisy chain means you go from display to display instead of pc to display. Wow all that cable savings."

If you had ever run a 3+ monitor setup, you'd realize what a huge benefit that is. I had to redrill my desk simply to run the cables through it up to the monitors. Running a single cable up to the stand, then interconnecting the monitors is a huge benefit.

> "since the cable tops out at 10.8 gbs, your going to have to cut something back"

Until Dual-link DisplayPort comes out.

> "that one cable will not be able to supply enough power to run 3 lcds."

I haven't seen the specs, but I'd say that depends on the monitors. Maybe not for today's LCDs, but it would certainly be enough for OLED-based monitors. For the computer market, it's a good bit more flexible than HDMI/DVI.

Is that additional flexibility worth the differing standard? If you don't think so-- don't buy it. Simple.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 4:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "you could just have updated the hdmi spec to 1.4...But nooo we need another goofy connector"

You're missing the point. If you **need** some feature that (may) be in HDMI 1.4, then a version 1.3 output is "just another goofy connector" also. It does you no good. When you need a forward feature, a back-version port might as well be from a differing standard entirely.

> "And your video card now needs to draw how much more power? so to power those monitors you'll have to run 4+ power cables from your psu? "

Err, you don't understand at all how powered DisplayPort cables work. It doesn't pull from the video card. Google up a diagram or two; it should make it clear.

> "and oled screens are still a general pipe dream"

They're on sale in Japan now:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/14/sonys-xel-1-ole...

Realistically, US sales, in more reasonable monitor sizes are still a couple years away.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By Justin Case on 12/7/2007 7:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you lose, but everyone wins.

DVI and HDMI are both half-baked standards. Or rather, the former is a half-baked standard, the latter is a standard aimed at DRM-infested home theater setups.

DP is a proper open standard, which implements a lot of useful features (for calibration, etc.), making it the first digital display interface that actually surpasses VGA (and HD-SDI) in every aspect.

Future iterations of DP are unlikely to require any change in connector, and can easily be made backwards / forwards compatible.

DP is what DVI should have been. HDMI should simply never have existed.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 9:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "hdmi uses the same connector no matter what version"

Dual-link HDMI uses a different connector than single link. In any case, you're stuck on the wrong issue entirely. So what if the connector fits? If the electronics behind it don't offer the bandwidth or features you need, then the fact that you can plug something in is meaningless.

Take your example of "features are being added to use one remote for interconnected devices". Let's say that shows up in HDMI 1.4. Now, your cable still fits your 1.3 Display...but that feature don't work. You have to buy new equipment anyway.

But that feature is **already** built into the DisplayPort interface, via its packet-based data channel....and in a far more general, flexible manner than HDMI possibly can.

Now tack on support for fiber-optic connections, RF connections, daisy-chained connections, powered cables and in-cable repeaters, support for audio-only or data-only connections (no video signal required), plus a few dozen other features, and you really start to see what DP offers.

> "I see nothing half baked about hdmi"

HDMI is just DVI, with audio and DRM staped on. That's why HDMI/DVI adaptors are so simple. And if you really don't realize what the limitations of DVI are, then let Google be your friend.


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/8/07, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 12/9/2007 9:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
Michal... You're views on everything is twisted... You are constantly wrong and proven wrong in every case.
(As you're history of ratings have shown)


RE: So whats wrong with the Current 'standard'
By michal1980 on 12/9/07, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 12/10/2007 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
No ratings don't define truth, but they can define how often someone is wrong and disliked.


By Lazarus Dark on 12/7/2007 5:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
My only problem is with the proposed DPCP.
Despite DRM being completely useless, at least with hdcp we have a universal standard. So long as you have a display and source that both use hdcp (which most have for a couple years now, all my devices support it) then it will do fine. Why introduce another drm scheme? It is completely unnecessary and only likely to cause more problems. DP will allow passthrough of dvi/hdmi signaling, which I hope most manufacturers will implement, so really there should be NO real problem with DP.
But DPCP worries me. I will NOT be getting rid of my 1080p hdmi lcd anytime soon, so any DP devices had better be compatible with hdmi/hdcp.


38X0 Better Than Decent...
By TechLuster on 12/6/2007 5:28:42 PM , Rating: 5
...since absolute performance should be evaluated relative to price and other considerations.

quote:
...the HD 3850/3870 cards that were launched last month performed decently. The one thing that AMD has going for it recently is competitive price points.


Actually, the 3850 in particular utterly destroyed the competition, in some cases DOUBLING the performance of Nvidia's competing 8600 GTS (while having lower idle power consumption and similar load consumption).

Given the fact that 3850's are actually both in stock and selling for the price AMD said they would (cf. the 8800 GT launch), I would argue that this card is an even more impressive product than the 8800 GT.

In summary, don't look at performance on absolute scales, without noting price, availability, power consumption (and performance per watt), and noise (the 3850's MUCH quieter than the CURRENT 8800 GT's).




RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By ImSpartacus on 12/6/2007 5:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I personally would get a 3850 before an 8800gt just because of price. I would not get a 3870 bc its dual slot (pretty sure) and both the price and performance are too close to the gt's.

3850 > 8800 gt > 3870

But I think a 256 mb 8800gt would be even better than a 3850 if they stay close to the msrp.


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By Viditor on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By Warren21 on 12/6/2007 6:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
You Sir, are confused. Or just plain incorrect.

The 3870 reference design is dual-slot, and I have yet to see a non-reference 3870 that is single slot.

I believe you are referring the the 3850, which I have seen with some aftermarket coolers (dual slot).


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By leexgx on 12/6/2007 8:41:43 PM , Rating: 1
the 3850 is an single slot with an noisy fan
the 3870 is an dual slot with an quite fan (due to the card been dual slot fan, it does not have to do much work)


By Lightning III on 12/7/2007 8:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
actually at idle the 3870 dual slot is louder than the 3850 according to this review http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/1/

both are quiter that the 8800gt

and if you can find them at msrp two 3870's are cheaper than a gtx and and you could get three for the price of an ultra and just look at the numbers.


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By StevoLincolnite on 12/7/2007 9:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
Have Dual Slot fans come along way since that god forsaken Dust Buster on the Geforce FX cards?
I've never owned a Dual Slot card, as I have always thought of them as noisy and power consuming and they steal my PCI Slot.


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
Every review I've read *but* the one referenced above claims the dual-slot 38xx is quieter than its little brother, despite drawing a tad more power.


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By peldor on 12/7/2007 8:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
All good, except that the 8800GT 256MB is now available at $210. That puts the 3850 back on shaky ground IMO. If you absolutely won't go over $200, fine, but the 8800GT is far ahead of the 3850 in performance. Well worth a $30-40 premium.

quote:
Given the fact that 3850's are actually both in stock and selling for the price AMD said they would (cf. the 8800 GT launch), I would argue that this card is an even more impressive product than the 8800 GT.
Demand is driving the 8800GT prices, not Nvidia. Obviously, people aren't quite as pumped about the 3850, when a few dollars more will get an 8800GT. If everyone flocked to the 3850, retailers would jack up the price on that too.

quote:
noise (the 3850's MUCH quieter than the CURRENT 8800 GT's).
Not true. The 8800GT is equally quiet/loud.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13603/9


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By retrospooty on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By SlyNine on 12/7/2007 9:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
You can compair cards that are equal in price. last I knew, This very well may have changed, The 8600GT was the closest price to the 3850.

As for the other guy compairing the 3850 and the 8800GT 256meg, Id say that the 8800gt 256 would compair more closely too the 3870. At some point a consumer has to find his limit, You can always spend a few dollors more and get good performence per dollor at the mid range. Lucky for Mr Consumer look for mid range stuff is like a kid in a candy store right now.


RE: 38X0 Better Than Decent...
By retrospooty on 12/7/2007 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
True, but the most recent round of releases has totally changed the pricing landscape in the past month, and not all products have caught up. The 8600GT/S has been obsoleted (by the 8800GT, as well as the 38x0's)

In early Q1, both Nvidia and ATI are releasing their new mid range chips - then you can make that comparison...


Have they solved this?
By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 5:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
DT, April 3rd, 2007:
quote:
"The most pominent factor however is the fact that DisplayPort doesn't have solid definitions for licensing. Although the DisplayPort group claims that there is little to no fees, the HDMI group points out that there are also no restrictions on adding in fees at a later date."

Using DisplayPort, does that inhibit me from connecting it to the Home Theater:

DT, December 18th, 2006:
quote:
"DisplayPort will not be compatible with DVI, UDI or HDMI and is geared specifically towards computer displays."


In other words, will it work ONLY with a computer monitor or can we expect TV-sets to, later, include DisplayPort too?




RE: Have they solved this?
By MonkeyPaw on 12/6/2007 6:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised to see future TVs having display ports. As it is now, many HDTVs come with a host of connectors, including VGA and DVI. My HDTV from 1.5 years ago has VGA, DVI, svideo, component, RCA, and coax (no HDMI though). Adding display port would be a drop in the bucket cost wise, and would be yet another feature to brag on for the manufacturer.


RE: Have they solved this?
By Zurtex on 12/6/2007 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Give the current stance of many companies, it looks like DisplayPort will become a computer monitor standard and HDMI will become a T.V standard.

HDMI doesn't need to really be improved on for T.V, but computer monitors will happily carry on progressing beyond HDMI's cabalities.


RE: Have they solved this?
By ninjit on 12/7/2007 4:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
The nice thing about DisplayPort, is that it is license and royalty free.

So it doesn't really cost a manufacturer anything to include it.

Hence, we'll hopefully see TV and entertainment systemts begin to include Displayport - perhaps in addition to HDMI (as opposed to replacing it).


Neat
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 12/7/2007 4:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Been waiting for DisplayPort since I heard about it. Goodbye stupid screw-on connectors!

Now, hopefully some good panel makers come out with monitors to support it quickly.




RE: Neat
By michal1980 on 12/7/2007 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 1
no screw on connectors are your friend. If there was going to be an upgraded from hdmi, is that... screw connector. Even if just a single screw. these connectors are prone to getting loose


RE: Neat
By masher2 (blog) on 12/7/2007 12:45:50 PM , Rating: 4
Then you'll love DisplayPort's latching mechanism on its connectors.


RV635 < HD3850 ?
By KingstonU on 12/6/2007 5:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
I may be mixing up R-XXX and RV-XXX

HD3800 = RV670 correct?

So is RV635 going to be 55nm but directed towards a market that is lower in performance than HD3870 and HD3850?

Will this be out before R700?




RE: RV635 < HD3850 ?
By Warren21 on 12/6/2007 5:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, your conclusion that the 38x0 cards will outperform this one is correct. AFAIK The RV635 is an RV630 (HD 2600) 55nm dieshrink, tweaked for DX 10.1, SM 4.1, etc. a la 2900 > 38x0.

IIRC the RV635 = HD36x0 line of cards. R700 isn't due 'til 2H 08.


RE: RV635 < HD3850 ?
By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 5:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
The new names are HD3650 and HD3670. The cards are replacing the old 26xx fasmily. And no more XTs, XTXs, Pro etc!

And Yes, they are on 55nm fabrication process. Since this leads to more dice per wafer they are cheper to make. And Yes, the performance, as the name implies are lower-mid.


Display Port
By Vanilla Thunder on 12/6/2007 5:35:45 PM , Rating: 3
Wait for it....wait for it.....wait for it....

V.




RE: Display Port
By Silverel on 12/7/2007 2:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
I try to ignore the anticipation myself. Just gives me hives really.

In a couple years, when they have reasonably monitors that use DP natively, and a whole slew of gpu's to pick and choose from, I'll drop a dime on it.


By Anonymous Freak on 12/6/2007 6:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
Audio: Yes, DisplayPort specifically defines including an audio signal, as the original story says.

VGA/DVI/HDMI compatibility? Officially, the DisplayPort signal is so completely different than DVI that you can't just put a simple adapter on to turn DisplayPort into DVI (or HDMI, or VGA.) But, display card manufacturers are allowed to make their cards such that the other signals are available on the physical port, so that a simple physical converter is all that it necessary. Similar to how DVI does not officially have NTSC or ATSC-compatible analog component or composite output, but a few manufacturers (Apple with composite, for one,) do use adapters to "convert" a DVI port into a component or composite connection. These adapters don't magically suck a composite signal out of the DVI standard, it's that the card manufacturer made their own "pass-through" into the DVI port. DisplayPort card manufacturers are free to do the same to allow for DVI or VGA compatibility (and through DVI, HDMI Although HDMI uses a different DRM scheme, so I don't know about how that would work.)

Number of monitors per cable? Well, the connection specifies 10.something Gb/s of bandwidth, and 2560x1600 at 24-bit color, 60 Hz refresh rate uses about 6.8 Gb/s of bandwidth. So you could run a 30" display plus a smaller-than-1080p display off a single cable. Or you could run quite a few 720p displays. It's all about bandwidth. (Sorry too lazy to look up the actual numbers, the DP bandwidth, and 30" res bandwidth are from memory, and might be wrong, but I do recall that DP doesn't have enough bandwidth for TWO 30" displays...)

Also, DisplayPort supports more than 8-bits-per-channel color, which means you could have a 16-bit-per-channel 1080p signal coming out of it for true HDR. (Now if only monitors had enough color gamut to support it... OLED, here we come.)




By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 6:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that with upto four serial links then, it's probably possible to connect at least four 30"-ers.


How's Gaming
By Sceptor on 12/7/2007 9:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
The first question I want answered is...Is multi-monitor gaming natively supported by this new standard.

It seems that the market ignores something that could be unique to PC gaming...multi-monitor gaming!!




RE: How's Gaming
By Anonymous Freak on 12/7/2007 11:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, it's just a plug. If the game supports it, it supports it. If the game doesn't, then it doesn't. This just "swaps" the DVI and/or VGA plugs for a new plug. The plug doesn't make any difference to the OS on wether or not the game supports more than one monitor.


10Gb Ethernet
By tynopik on 12/7/2007 12:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
How long till we just run everything off ethernet?

plug a monitor into the network, drive it from any computer

any computer can drive multiple monitors without special hardware

we already have all sorts of management and routing tools for ethernet, will make it a snap to integrate




I hope...
By mbf on 12/9/2007 4:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
...that the DisplayPort connector can be securely attached with a couple of screws like the VGA (DSUB15) or the DVI connector, and not like the "new breed" of connectors such as HDMI and USB. Yes, they're small and sexy, but in my opinion it takes next to nothing to make them go loose.




Interesting....
By daftrok on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting....
By Bluestealth on 12/6/2007 5:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
I find it funny how everyone wants convergent devices that just work... BUT when the makers of consumer electronics got close to that point, they ran in the other direction.

It seems to me now everyone will be stuck supporting two outputs for some time in the future.


RE: Interesting....
By Clauzii on 12/6/2007 5:44:33 PM , Rating: 5
It's strange You say that DP doesn'y stream audio...

In the article it says "8 channels, 24 bit" ???


RE: Interesting....
By daftrok on 12/6/2007 8:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
D'oh. Stupid afterdawn.com. My mistake


RE: Interesting....
By DigitalFreak on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting....
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You're an idiot.

You coulda just said, hey read the article. No need to be mean about it.


RE: Interesting....
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/2007 6:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
bah nvm, I read some of your other posts, you're just as mean everywhere else. No use calling you out on it.


RE: Interesting....
By straycat74 on 12/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting....
By BruceLeet on 12/7/2007 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 3
Its Me-sathinks not methinks :P


RE: Interesting....
By phusg on 12/7/2007 11:55:46 AM , Rating: 3
And did you grow up playing sports where winning was more important than sportsmanship or team spirit?

quote:
when did adults start using 'methinks'?

Shakespeare probably kicked it all off somewhere in the 16th century, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/methinks#Etymology


RE: Interesting....
By straycat74 on 12/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting....
By retrospooty on 12/7/2007 1:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Star Wars took place a long time ago"

[comicbook guy voice] actually, I believe it was a long LONG time ago...


RE: Interesting....
By straycat74 on 12/7/2007 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it was "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.


RE: Interesting....
By retrospooty on 12/7/2007 2:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - you are right. My dork must be getting smaller as I get older. =)


RE: Interesting....
By straycat74 on 12/7/2007 4:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that was a myth..... I guess that's what all those "enhancement" e-mails are for.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki