DailyTech - DisplayPort Equipped Video Cards on AMD Map for 2008

Submit News

Hardware DisplayPort Equipped Video Cards on AMD Map for 2008
Wolfgang Hansson (Blog) - July 27, 2007 10:03 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

53 comment(s) - last by JeffDM.. on Jul 30 at 2:02 AM

AMD slides from analysis day show DisplayPort video cards on map for 2008

DisplayPort is the new standard approved for PC displays in April of this year. Recently several manufacturers have announced that they will bring DisplayPort displays to market with Dell promising displays this year. Samsung announced today that they will have a 30 inch display using DisplayPort early next year also. The other part of the spectrum needed to enjoy DisplayPort displays are video cards with DisplayPort built-in.

AMD held an analyst’s day today and the roadmaps showed that in 2008 with their Shanghai processors, they will also be rolling out R700 FireGL graphics cards that feature DisplayPort video outputs. This release of DisplayPort video cards will coincide with the announcement today from Samsung that 30 inch DisplayPort LCD panels are being readied for next year.

No firm time frame in 2008 was given during the analyst’s day, but with some PC makers like Dell saying they intend to bring DisplayPort to market at the end of 2007 we might assume that means early 2008 for the R700 parts. We can also expect to see the consumer oriented R700 parts launching with DisplayPort in 2008.

In addition to DisplayPort, the AMD roadmaps also make mention of Microsoft DirectX 11 compliance next year in their GPU line.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

Thats enough already

By mdogs444 on 7/27/2007 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 4

Does anyone else agree that this is getting a little crazy?

I mean lets just have a method of transfering video from the PC to the Monitor and stick with it. VGA was great for many many years. The emergence of DVI was great for a Digital video feed, as opposed to analog. Then theirs HDCP compliance, but not all methods of transferring video can use it. Now theirs displayport which looks like HDMI but its not the same.

I say who the hell cares, just pick something and stick with it. I dont want to have to buy a new video card, then a new monitor, then new something else....

Also, who cares about DX11....DX10 still does nothing for us besides raise the price of video cards that support it.

RE: Thats enough already

By Misty Dingos on 7/27/2007 10:22:31 AM , Rating: 4

Yes it is a little crazy. The constantly evolving standards are enough to drive one to drink. It would be nice if they came up with a hardware standard for video transmission that worked up to and including the next generation of HDTVs and computer monitors. And then left it alone for TEN years.

But trying to get engineers to agree on anything is like herding drunken cats on acid with a cat nip broom! So getting the said video standard is somewhat less likely than glaciers in Phoenix Az.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By gersson on 7/27/07, Rating: 0

RE: Thats enough already

By mdogs444 on 7/27/2007 10:27:30 AM , Rating: 2

Who is suggesting that we still use it? Perhaps you had best re-read the posts. It was said that it was great during its time. Then DVI came and is great now.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 10:36:07 AM , Rating: 2

I just don't get the point of this, The jump from vga to dvi was well warrented, a digital connection over analogue is always better. But why make yet another adaptor? i thought things were finally going the right way when hdmi came out, although the cables are expensive, it could work on anything, pc, tv, receiver, etc.. 1 cable for everything seems ideal doesnt it?

Are we really suppose to upgrade from hdmi just because some rich graphics designer needs the bandwidth to run at a resolution of 3000x2000?? or some crazy resolution like that. Because after looking into it, there is absolutely no advantage of displayport over hdmi, except for marginally longer cable runs. DIGITAL IS DIGITAL PEOPLE!!! the only reason i ever supported even hdmi is the compatibility between devices, and the ability to run audio and video through the same cable, i dont see how displayport is going to make things any better!

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By EndPCNoise on 7/27/2007 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 4

There's a whole lot more savings with DisplayPort than just royaties...

quote:
In a joint undertaking with Genesis Microchip, Samsung developed its 30” panel using a new four-lane, 2.7Gbps/lane interface chip. The interface technology processes 2560x1600 pixels of graphics data at up to 10 bits of color depth or 1.07 billion colors, a feat that would normally require at least three DVI or four LVDS interface chips, which means more complex and more expensive design .

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/2007072...

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 2

hdmi supports 10 and 12 bits of colour depth, the article is comparing to dvi which only supports 6,8 bits depths i think. So once again very similar ;)

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By Ajax9000 on 7/29/2007 7:58:19 PM , Rating: 2

Single link DVI is 8bpp, dual link can be deeper.

See page 13:- http://www.ddwg.org/lib/dvi_10.pdf

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By rklaver on 7/27/2007 9:09:50 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
...some rich graphics designer needs the bandwidth to run at a resolution of 3000x2000

Hi my name is Rich, I'm a graphic designer, and I say DVI is fine. Thank you

:-D

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By 13Gigatons on 7/27/2007 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 3

I'm still using VGA and it seems to work just fine. People see digital and automatically thinks it's better or that I need it.

I've waited until one new connection actually wins like display port.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By killerroach on 7/27/2007 11:13:45 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
The constantly evolving standards are enough to drive one to drink.

So we need a reason now? :)

Anyways, so long as nobody is seeing anything really shake out with the current standards, why not throw something else against the wall and see if it sticks? Dual-link DVI has some traction in PC applications, but in home theater setups, it's a bit of a jungle, especially when the future setups that would require connections like HDMI and DisplayPort are only in the hands of those with large amounts of disposable income... there's still a chance to shape those standards, and that's what the DisplayPort supporters (which include AMD, Intel, and Samsung, among other) intend to do.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2

Go look at my other post, why not throw something else against the wall? well, DISPLAYPORT is an HDMI ripoff that it too late to the market, they do exactly the same thing with displayport having marginally more bandwidth. Just so you know i looked it up and the liscense fees for hdmi is 15-20 cents per unit. This will never benefit us, infact it probably will barely benefit the monitor makers.

This is just another stunt to get the public to buy something they already have (i.e monitor with dvi or hdmi)

Basically my view is that until something comes along that is leaps and bounds ahead of hdmi i will not buy it, and to start using a format that includes everything from the hdmi spec just adding another encryption format and .6ghz bandwidth is nothing special

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 5

> "This is just another stunt to get the public to buy something they already have (i.e monitor with dvi or hdmi)"

I hesitate to use the word "paranoid", but do you honestly believe these companies think you'll rush out and buy a new monitor, simply because your existing one lacks this port?

DisplayPort is an open standard, free of royalties, and designed from the ground up for monitor-based applications, rather than a general-purpose consumer-electronics solution. Those are undeniable pluses. Personally, I view the fact that it competes with HDMI as a positive, not a negative. It gives consumers choice. I'd rather let the market decide which is the better standard (or if in fact both standards have their own niche) than to have some corporate body (or worse, a government one) ramming their decision down my throat.

> "i looked it up and the liscense fees for hdmi is 15-20 cents per unit"

Per unit, yes. That's 3 items as a minimum includes monitor, video card, cable at a mininum. And when you consider that BOM costs are typically magnified by a factor of at least 3 at the retail level, that works out to about $1.50 in extra cost to the consumer. If you can get all that functionality in a free, open standard-- why not do it?

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 11:57:57 AM , Rating: 3

Are you seriously pushing a standard for a $1.50? When push comes to shove, it is essentially hdmi without fees, you cant deny that. In your opinion why go further from compatibility when you could go closer? Choice only means something to the consumer if they get something out of it. Different cables along with new monitors that will look no better is not a reason for choice.

quote:
DisplayPort is an open standard, free of royalties, and designed from the ground up for monitor-based applications, rather than a general-purpose consumer-electronics solution.

who cares if it was designed from the ground up, do you seriously think one digital connection differs from the other enough to warrant a change of format?
There wont be higher resolutions, audio will not sound better. Just a bunch of excuses if you ask me..

but as you pointed out, I dont have to buy it... for time time being atleast...

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 3

> "Are you seriously pushing a standard for a $1.50? "

A dollar here, a dollar there...the relentless drive to reduce costs whereever possible is the reason why we're no longer paying $6,000 for PCs that run at 4.77 mhz. Furthermore, you're just considering licensing fees, whereas at least some of the companies pushing Displayport claim it will be cheaper to manufacture as well.

And I'm not pushing the standard. I'm pushing free choice. I don't know whether Displayport or HDMI will win, or whether both will eventually coexist within their own niches. But I'm confident the market will make the right choice, and that the result will be better than if our option had been HDMI right from the start.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
the relentless drive to reduce costs whereever possible is the reason why we're no longer paying $6,000 for PCs that run at 4.77 mhz

quote:
or whether both will eventually coexist within their own niches

There will be no winning or losing, they will as you predicted, coexist in their own niche, my question is WHY?
Nobody has given me a straight answer as to why we are going backwards not forwards, free market does not neccessarily mean more choice. You will still be forced to buy HDMI in the hometheatre market, and will be forced to buy displayport in the pcmarket.

What gets me the most is how this screws with the audio components. So you keep talking about price, what about the price of audio companies having to have hdmi and displayport in the same receiver. Or for LCD makers to have both on their tv's so you can output from your pc. Or even the price you are going to have to pay to get an adapter to convert from one to the other.

And as for progress, your right we need competition to progress, but in my opinion the displayport standard will have no impact on the progress of pc's, nothing that hdmi couldnt have done atleast.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 3

> "You will still be forced to buy HDMI in the hometheatre market, and will be forced to buy displayport in the pcmarket"

This will only happen if DisplayPort does in fact offer some clear advantage-- either in price, form factor, or functionality- within its market segment. If not, then why would anyone buy DisplayPort products? Those items will languish on the shelves, and HDMI will predominate.

And who knows? Perhaps the mere threat of Displayport will force HDMI to lower licensing fees and/or open the standard. You can't ignore the effects on competition upon the competitors themselves.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 12:47:32 PM , Rating: 1

Do you really think displayport's future lies totally in the hands of if 'DisplayPort does in fact offer some clear advantage' If you really think monitor manufacturers will not phase out dvi/vga no matter what the popularity is you are just being naive.

This has nothing to do with free market, i love the free market, i think the HDDVD/BD war is great, two competing formats in the same field, will drive down prices faster, and force both companies to improve their hardware.

This is a totally different situation, they are the essentially the same product, being marketed in two different sectors. As i explained before in this situation having both could actually raise prices, as audio companies and TV makers will have to add the cost of the other format to their production cost, which would probably offset anything you would have got back from no liscense fees.

Once again, i am pro-choice, i just do not see a choice here, i see a format being forced upon us for no reason with no real benefits. I suppose i am being hypocritical, i cant really be choosing when the open market is good or bad, i guess i just want the best of both worlds ;)

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 1:05:27 PM , Rating: 3

> " If you really think monitor manufacturers will not phase out dvi/vga no matter what the popularity is you are just being naive"

Nonsense. If consumers consistently and uniformly refuse to buy any product which fails to include a VGA adaptor, then those products will remain. Forever. VGA is only now being phased out because a many consumers really DON'T care if their new monitors and video cards contain it. The market is deciding. Not manufacturers.

For another example, I could give you the failed UDI standard (remember how we were told it was going to sweep the field?) and many others. When consumers refuse to buy, the standard dies on the vine.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 1:21:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
If consumers consistently and uniformly refuse to buy any product which fails to include a VGA adaptor, then those products will remain. Forever.

I think you are being far too naive in this matter, things are never as clear cut as you are making them out to be. And you are putting far too much faith in the idea of "the consumer controls all" because the fact of the matter is, they dont.

The DVI standard was pushed upon us even though the average user can not tell the difference between an analogue and digital connection (VGA vs DVI). They were told by the manufactorers it is superior and we believed it. We now have the luxury of paying 10-15 times the amount for cables that most people can not even tell the difference. What makes you think the exact same thing will not happen again?

and as for VGA adapters, that makes no difference either, VGA to DVI-A adapters do not convert the signal from analogue to digital, and do not work with most monitors/tv's whom usually have a DVI-D connection that only supports digital signals. VGA is a legacy format and thats the only reason it is being kept around. CRT monitors are really no longer being sold as a mass market product so i would imagine VGA will disappear soon too.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 3

> "We now have the luxury of paying 10-15 times the amount for cables that most people can not even tell the difference"

Oh, where to start. First of all, many people *can* tell a difference. DVI is a superior standard from an image quality prespective. Conversion to VGA entails data loss.. Secondly, cables are not "10-15 times as expensive". You can get DVI cables online for under $10.

Thirdly, DVI is cheaper to implement in hardware than VGA, as it allows the removal of a large amount of ADC/DAC related components. That more than trumps any difference in cable price which, by now, is pretty close to zero anyway.

> "VGA is a legacy format and thats the only reason it is being kept around"

You're proving my point for me. VGA is being kept around because of legacy VGA devices. Which in turn creates a demand for products with VGA ports. The market is deciding here, not manufacturers.

Furthermore, there are a growing number of products without VGA ports. Why? Because there's a growing number of people willing to buy them. The two go hand-in-hand.

> "you are putting far too much faith in the idea of "the consumer controls all""

Manufacturers cannot force consumers to buy products. If everyone refuses to buy, the standard will die. Period. It's happened countless times before, and will again.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
First of all, many people *can* tell a difference.

I never said nobody can tell a difference, but i would be hard pressed to say more than 25% of the people can tell or care about the difference. And its nice things can be bought off ebay, but most people and this time i can give a big number like 95% will not, i go to bestbuy and everytime i see a few people being suckered into buying 100$ monster cables.

quote:
Thirdly, DVI is cheaper to implement in hardware than VGA, as it allows the removal of a large amount of ADC/DAC related components

No.. the ADC/DAC components can not be removed, because of legacy connections that will not go away (other than VGA which is becoming rare on newer lcd tv's). component, RCA, svideo etc.. all need to be converted to digital to be viewed on your lcd or plasma display.

quote:
Manufacturers cannot force consumers to buy products. If everyone refuses to buy, the standard will die. Period. It's happened countless times before, and will again.

yes i agree with you 90% of time it works in this fashion, but there is no rule set in stone, and i feel really strongly on this one that display manufacturers could force the public to use displayport, especially with the limited amount of CRT displays being produced. of course once again.. my opinion..

I think we have both made some really great points on the subject, and it is obvious we have totally different views, so i will end it with this one last comment. After a little more research into the matter, i realized displayport will not even support audio, just as dvi does not, so i started to think, displayport is not a futureproofing standard, and the fact no audio is present leaves me to believe it will eventually set us back. what happens when hdmi becomes the standard for audio? are we now going to have to have displayport for video and hdmi just for audio? is that not a step backwards?
just my final 2cents ;)

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 3

> "No.. the ADC/DAC components can not be removed, because of legacy connections that will not go away (other than VGA which is becoming rare on newer lcd tv's). component, RCA, svideo etc.."

My current video card contains two DVI ports. No VGA, no component, no RCA, svideo, etc. The DAC circuitry has *already* been removed. Right now. Today.

Likewise, you can already buy digital-only monitors which contain no ADC whatsoever.

> "After a little more research into the matter, i realized displayport will not even support audio"

Of course. Nor does it support HDMI's remote-control channel, or several other features. As I already said, DisplayPort is oriented towards computer displays , NOT general consumer home-theatre needs. Its therefore cheaper to implement, even if you ignore the lack of royalties.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By namechamps on 7/28/2007 8:02:07 PM , Rating: 3

Care to post the make & model of your video card?

I am 99.99999% that you videocard with DVI only is actually DVI-I and and as such contains pins for both DVI-D and DVI-A. In order to drive an analog device it still has a RAMDAC and like your LCD has a VGA in and therefore still has an ADC. To connect your videocard to a vga port requires either a dongle or a DVI-A/VGA cable. Neither is converting the single your videocard is simply outputting in analog.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb...

I have not seen anywhere a videocard that is DVD-D (digital only).

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By JeffDM on 7/30/2007 2:02:56 AM , Rating: 2

Sam's Club/WalMart, and other chains do sell cheaper DVI & HDMI cables. I paid $20, which isn't that bad for a decent brand name cable, losing the brand name, it's even cheaper.

monoprice.com is very good too, cheaper still.

Just because Monster exists and makes expensive cables doesn't invalidate the cables, Monster was selling analog component cables for just as much as the DVI/HDMI ones, so even without digital cables, Monster would still have a huge sucker buyer base.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By JeffDM on 7/30/2007 1:43:35 AM , Rating: 2

i think the HDDVD/BD war is great, two competing formats in the same field, will drive down prices faster, and force both companies to improve their hardware.

That's an interesting take on the matter. The same happened when there was only one standard too, with DVD. Everybody making devices with the same compatibility meant that they had to find differentiation by other means, by adding features or cutting prices. Competing standards that are roughly equivalent only seem to serve to divide the market.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By MGSsancho on 7/27/2007 4:05:45 PM , Rating: 2

Royalties is what ruined Firewire. USBs original royalty was 5 cents if I am correct, and firewire was 25 cents. NOw fire wire is technically better, up to 30V to power devices (no power brick for external HDDs,) there is the 800mbs spec and a 3.2gbs spec. Oh vista SP1 will support firewire B (3.2gbs.)
You may not realize it but royalties is a major factor in the PC industry. the consumer electronics industry is too messed up with non open specs.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 2

changing the form of your connector also factor much moreso than royalties, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800 cables are not compatible with each other, where as USB 2 is the same connection and is compatible with USB 1.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By JeffDM on 7/30/2007 1:52:44 AM , Rating: 2

There was some occasional trouble with using older USB 1 cables as USB 2, the cables could be made to much lower standards when the signal was only 12Mbps rather than 480Mbps.

With respect to Firewire, it's just a different connector that doubles the number of signal channels that pass through the connector. With a cheap cable adapter, you can use a Firewire 400 device from a FW800 connector. That cable just passes through half of the signal lines, and it works fine.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 10:51:12 AM , Rating: 2

> "Also, who cares about DX11....DX10 still does nothing for us besides raise the price of video cards that support it... "

DX10 has extremely real and large benefits over DX9, in both performance and feature set. The fact that games are not yet utilizing this is beside the point. If you build hardware only for the current crop of games, you never enable the new ones.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By mdogs444 on 7/27/2007 10:57:38 AM , Rating: 2

You cannot say that DX10 has real world performace increases over DX9 if there is nothing out there to utlize it.

I never said that it wouldnt do anything in the future, but im saying it doesnt do anything right now, so who even cares about Dx11? SHow us what DX10 does before telling us about DX11.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 3

> "I never said that it wouldnt do anything in the future, but im saying it doesnt do anything right now, so who even cares about Dx11? "

You're missing the concept of a enabling pipeline. For DX10 games to come, DX10 cards must exist. For cards to exist, DX10 GPUs must exist. For that to happen, those GPUs need to be designed years in advance.

The DX9 you love so well today exists only because way back in the year 2000-- back when people were griping about DX8 not giving enough advantage over DX7-- ATI and NVidia were designing new DX9 processors.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By Xavian on 7/27/2007 7:35:58 PM , Rating: 2

That's all well and good, but what happens if a DirectX revision is poorly coded or optimised to take advantage of those DirectX revision cards?

That's what we are seeing right now with Vista.

From all benchmarks i have seen, there are no "real-world" advantages, only theoretical ones.

Also, every single game i have seen that is being developed for DirectX 10 shows hardly any improvement over DirectX 9.0c except a little bit more geometry added.

Now don't get me wrong i have a DirectX 10 card in my computer right now, but i use it purely for DirectX 9 applications, because right now, DirectX 10 patched games offer no visual or performance benefits.

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By justjc on 7/28/2007 9:20:25 AM , Rating: 2

From what I have read, from an interview with AMD, we should care a great deal about DX11. DX11 isn't just an upgrade to the graphics, but will also involve a standard for using the graphics card as a GPGPU, using the power of the cards to do other tasks than just powering the graphics.
Sure it won't be as efficient as the languages from ATi and nVidia, each specialised for their own cards, but with a standard we are likely to see more programs using this new source of processing power, which could start a revolution in what a personal computer is able to do.

The AMD interview http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/cpu/38/the-techn...

Parent

RE: Thats enough already

By Rickler on 7/27/2007 1:20:12 PM , Rating: 2

DisplayPort is an open standard like VGA and DVI; while HDMI is not. So it's not all that crazy if you just count out the proprietary connectors. Analog VGA -> digital DVI -> digital DP. DVI is getting old clunky; it's time to get replaced.

Parent

The real reasons for Displayport

By Snipester on 7/27/2007 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 3

1. Smaller connector
2. 3 different types that work together (modular) 1-lane, 2-lane, 4-lane
3. Because of modularity the connector can be small can put on Cellphones, pdas to output to display port compatible display.
4. Bkward compatibility (with dvi/vga + HDCP) <--not 100% sure on this one
5. Even the largest 4-lane output will have a smaller connector than VGA/DVI. On laptops that are small and getting smaller and thinner this is critical. Laptop makers can continue to shrink laptops.
6. No HDMI royalties
7. Small connectors can allow for many monitor outputs on a standard ATX video card possible easily.
8. Cables are smaller vs VGA/DVI <-- depends i guess?

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By MetaDFF on 7/27/2007 10:53:23 AM , Rating: 2

Not to mention there is also support for 10 Gbps optical video connectivity for those extra long cable runs.

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 11:06:49 AM , Rating: 2

Thats all nice and dandy, but what the hell is the advantage over hdmi, its essentially the same. Adaptors will be available from one to another, with close to 100% compatibility.

I just do not see the reason for another format if it is exactly the same but for the licensing fees

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 2

No licensing fees equates to cheaper products. Furthermore, DisplayPort's feature set is more designed around computer displays, whereas HDMI is oriented towards consumer electronics...and carries additional baggage to do so.

Don't agree with the asssessment that Displayport is better suited for this market segment? Then just don't buy the products. If enough people agree with you, the standard will die on the vine. If enough believe in it, it will thrive and mature. That's the beauty of the free market.

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2

from the hdmi site:

HDMI Adopters must pay an annual fee of ten thousand dollars (US$10,000)
# For each end-user Licensed Product, fifteen cents (US$0.15) per unit sold.
# If the Adopter reasonably uses the HDMI logo on the product and promotional materials, then the rate drops to five cents (US$0.05) per unit sold.

So your telling me 10'000 + 5cents to 15cents per unit is going to make products cheaper? sorry to tell you but you will never see a penny of that money it just means better margins for the companies selling them.

quote:
Don't agree with the asssessment that Displayport is better suited for this market segment? Then just don't buy the products. If enough people agree with you, the standard will die on the vine. If enough believe in it, it will thrive and mature. That's the beauty of the free market.

normally i would agree with you but not in this situation, we are not going to have a choice, if monitor manufacturers want displayport to be the standard it will be, they will limit production of hdmi monitors and eventually phase out the DVI standard totally.

Two formats are not needed plain and simple, this is a moneygrab for monitor manufacturers probably because lcd monitors have hit a very low pricepoint right now and margins are starting to drop. (i know displayport was thought of years ago, but in the end this is all just a marketing ploy)

If displayport came out before hdmi i would have jumped on the dp bandwagon, but the fact is; 2 nearly identical formats are not needed, and the pc/entertainment market should be getting closer together not further apart

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By masher2

(blog) on 7/27/2007 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2

> "So your telling me 10'000 + 5cents to 15cents per unit is going to make products cheaper? sorry to tell you but you will never see a penny of that money it just means better margins"

As I explained above, the actual consumer cost of those licensing fees is several times higher. And its fallacious to think cost reductions won't eventually trickle down to the consumer. If one company doesn't reduce prices, its competitors will. That's why the entire concept of "margins" exists...because manufacturing costs set a minimum floor for pricing. When you lower the floor, the pricing eventually follows.

Finally, I wonder why you're so personally distressed by greater choice in the marketplace. If you don't like Displayport-- don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the standard will vanish quickly enough.

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By Operandi on 7/27/2007 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 2

What is the max resolution of DisplayPort?

I would think that would be the biggest advantage over DVI.

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 3:33:08 PM , Rating: 2

Displayport specs right now say:
10 Gbit/s forward link channel supports high resolution monitors, 2560×1600, with single cable.

DVI:
single link dvi: DVI single link 60-Hz LCD can display a resolution of 1920 x 1080

dual link: DVI dual link can display a resolution of up to 2048 x 1536.

Although i have seen some setups where the resolution is higher, but i am pretty sure they are running out of spec.

HDMI: As for hdmi, you would be hard pressed to find the actual maximum pc resolution of hdmi, but i am guessing it is very close to displayport, since the bandwidth is also about 10 Gbit/s

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By namechamps on 7/29/2007 2:55:50 PM , Rating: 2

A couple of corrections.

Single Link DVI: 1920x1200
Dual Link DVI: 2560x1600

The specs actually allow slightly more but nobody will come out with a monitor that is say 2028x1482 so those are effectively the largest screens possible.

The number 2048x1536 gets thrown around a lot but has NOTHING to do with the digital portion of DVI. Analog cards require a RAMDAC and a RAMDAC running @ 400Mhz has been standardized for a long time now and at 400Mhz a RAMDAC can convert 2048x1536 pixels from digital to analog. At one point (1980) the max resolution of your video card was determined by the speed of the RAMDAC but those days are long since gone. While it would be possible to up this by boosting the RAMDAC speed it likely will never happen as analog is on it's way out. So until it dies analog is limited to 2048x1536.

Displayport with 10Gbit "could" support higher resolutions however even 10Gbit is not enough to go much higher.

Let's look at some common resolutions:
1920x1200 (supported by single link DVI & HDMI) (3.3Gbps)
2560x1600 (supported by dual link DVI & HDMI) (5.89Gbps)
3840x2400 (13.2Gps)

The next step up in wide screen resolutions would be
WQUXGA (3840×2400) which requires 13.2Gbits @ 60 Hz.
So in order for DP to offer "higher resolution" then a new proposed resolution less than WQUXGA would need to be agreed upon. For example 2880x1820 would "fit" on Displayport but it also fits on HDMI1.3. The HDMI spec has a "dual link" type connector called Connector B. Connector B supports 20Gbps on an HDMI1.3 link. So while Display port maxes out at 2880x1820 HDMI could go up to 3840x2400.

Once again I ask what is the reason for another standard that is less capable compared to HDMI. HDMI costs 5cents per device (source, sink, cable). If anyone thinks DP is going to result in massive cost savings for the consumer I have a bridge to sell you.

Parent

RE: The real reasons for Displayport

By Ajax9000 on 7/29/2007 11:35:22 PM , Rating: 2

A correction to your correction :-)

With VESA CVT reduced blanking 330Mhz DL-DVI* is formally capable of:
2880x1620@66.33Hz 24bpp 16:9
2880x1728@62Hz 24bpp 15:9
2560x1920@62Hz 24bpp 4:3

And should be able to do 16:10 2880x1800@60Hz 24bpp with custom reduced blanking** -- i.e. H-blank reduced from 160 to 144 or lower.

* However, ICs to handle full 330MHz don't seem to be made yet, they max out at 270MHz (e.g. the SiI 1169).

** Depending on how tB is encoded -- see page 32:- http://www.ddwg.org/lib/dvi_10.pdf -- something I've never quite worked out.

Also, with VESA CVT reduced blanking, the Gbps figures become:
2560x1600@60Hz 24bpp 16:10 >> 2.64 Gbps
2880x1620@60Hz 24bpp 16:9 >> 2.98 Gbps
3840x2160@60Hz 24bpp 16:9 >> 5.22 Gbps
3840x2400@60Hz 24bpp 16:10 >> 5.8 Gbps
4096x2160@24Hz 24bpp "4k" digital film >> 2.23 Gbps
4096x2160@48Hz 24bpp "4k" >> 4.45 Gbps
4096x2160@72Hz 24bpp "4k" >> 6.68 Gbps
4096x2160@48Hz 48bpp "4k" >> 8.9 Gbps

So at 10Gbps DisplayPort is very capable ... but only over short cables. Support for full bandwidth is only required on copper-wire-type cable runs of up to 3 metres. At 15 metres support for a paltry 1080p60 (24bpp) is all that is required for compliance with the DisplayPort spec.

To me, this really demonstrates how focused VESA was on the computing side of things; as it reveals their assumption that DisplayPort will primarily be used in situations where a high resolution display is physically proximate to the source -- i.e. a typical "workstation setup".

When DisplayPort V1.0 was announced in 2006 I sent them a scathing e-mail about this assumption, about the lack of interoperability with DVI/HDMI, and about their failure to create a standard for optical transmission (citing the DVI/HDMI market where all the optical implementations are proprietary, incompatible, and hideously expensive). Although they never replied to me, I note with amusement that DisplayPort V1.1 introduced "hybrid devices" to allow optical or wireless connections. But they still haven't created a standard for optical links, so don't be surprised when we see proprietary, incompatible, and hideously expensive implementations of DisplayPort-optical.

I've said a couple of times on the Internet that an easy way to have progressed the most common digital display transmission standard -- DVI -- would have been to add optical outputs onto a DVI-D plug. There seems to be just enough room to get up to four 1.6mm fibre tips around contact C5, with DVI pins 6,7,14,15 used for handshaking/DDC.

One of my issues with DisplayPort (and UDI) is that it is an anti-convergence development. With DVI and HDMI being (mostly) interoperable there was a big leap forward (with a few wobbles) in consumer electronics and computing becoming intertwined (e.g. HTPC etc.). By not making DisplayPort backward compatible with DVI/HDMI VESA appears to be deliberately trying to turn back the convergence tide. Yes, we may get DisplayPort integrated into future consumer electronics products, but it is still another example of designed obsolescence which IMHO is quite unwarranted.

Personally I find it really funny (i.e. sad) that 10 weeks ago VESA released the "DisplayPort Interoperability Guideline Version 1". In which they state:

quote:
There is industry interest in establishing a means for achieving interoperability between DisplayPort Devices and DVI 1.0/HDMI compatible Devices. For example, it is desirable to have the ability to connect a cable between a DisplayPort Source Device and a DVI 1.0/HDMI Sink Device (or vice versa) and have the devices interoperate. This interoperability cannot currently be accomplished at the specification level , ...

(emphasis added)

I.e. industry said "What have you idiots done in not making it backwards compatible? Fix it!"

What is even funnier is that DisplayPort V1.0 introduced DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP) rather than HDCP. A year later DisplayPort V1.1 was "extended" to include HDCP.

Parent

Sounds fine to me

By archcommus on 7/27/2007 10:27:39 AM , Rating: 2

Face it, we need a more modern standard for PC video. DVI is huge and bulky. A connector like this fits nicely with USB and other small cords, and is also appropriate for increasing resolutions and HD feeds. Yeah, it'd be nice if home theater and PC could share a standard, but that's just not going to happen. Having HDMI and DisplayPort coexist should be fine.

Wikipedia says that DisplayPort is a competitor to HDMI, and now that they are both officially approved standards in two different market segments, I believe this is incorrect.

RE: Sounds fine to me

By DigitalFreak on 7/27/2007 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 2

The only reason Display Port exists is that HDMI requires royalty payments.

Parent

RE: Sounds fine to me

By omnicronx on 7/27/2007 11:00:30 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Yeah, it'd be nice if home theater and PC could share a standard, but that's just not going to happen

And why is that? When hdmi came out and monitor makers said they would start to implement it, they said the reason for the switch was for compatibility between devices, whats changed now? For all those who wanted to know here are the differences between hdmi and displayport:

* It has a maximum bandwith of 10.8 Gbit/sec, compared to HDMI at 10.2 Gbit/sec
* It supports the DPCP (DisplayPort Content Protection) standard in addition to HDCP
* It is an open standard, available to all manufacturers at no cost; HDMI is licensed by HDMI LLC, which raises the cost to consumers

So essentially, it has an insignificant amount of bandwidth increase, a copy protection essentially the same as HDCP and it is an open standard.. so the display markers can save a few pennies a monitor, because chances are the consumer wont see any of that money, not that the liscense fee is anything big.

Parent

RE: Sounds fine to me

By JeffDM on 7/30/2007 1:35:22 AM , Rating: 2

I really don't see DVI being terribly bulky, it's not that big of a problem in my opinion because it's something that rarely needs to be removed. USB cables are a lot more likely to be changed. Other than notebook computers, I really don't see back panel space being a huge constraint. As it is, connector aside, my home theater's HDMI cable is thicker than my DVI cables.

Parent

chicken or the egg

By Screwballl on 7/27/2007 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 2

So will they have the port native on the card (which I suspect)? Or will motherboard manufacturers work with the video card manufacturers to create a single card/port in the case expansion holes that you can connect either to the motherboard or the exact same internal connector on the video card itself for the same port. Heck why don't they just put it on the back panel where the Serial and parallel ports used to be so you don't use up a expansion slot.
This way the system builder/manufacturer can plug it in where needed. If the person needs a better video card, it can be installed without the need for a DVI-VGA converter, just unplug from mobo and plug into video card.

Analysis?

By mikeblas on 7/27/2007 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 2

Is it "analysis day" or "Analyst's Day"?

hate it

By Visual on 7/28/2007 6:14:03 AM , Rating: 2

i will never buy a videocard with this displayport, or with udi, or with allen, or with whatever else weird thing that has no real reasoning behind it at all.

if i ever buy a monitor with such inputs, it'd need to be with dvi/hdmi too, and i'll use those.

why do they try to split the pc market from the ce market? what's wrong with hdmi? licensing costs is what i've heared, but never seen a quote about the actual price difference, and i won't believe it's worth it to complicate things with another port...

boycott displayport!