backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 49 comment(s) - last by Cunthor01.. on May 23 at 2:44 AM
Count in ATI, NVIDIA, Philips, Samsung and more

Several weeks ago DailyTech reported about all the big manufacturers joining together to support DisplayPort, the next major standard in digital display interfaces. Consumers are more than just slightly frustrated about the number of potential standards. Besides, Dell, HP and Lenovo, graphics companies are now vouching support for DisplayPort.

ATI spoke to reporters this week and confirmed that it will be developing GPUs with DisplayPort support. Graphics chips with the new standard will start to be introduced sometime in early 2007 says ATI. Currently, companies that design transmitters, such as Silicon Image are also working on DisplayPort-compliant devices.

Besides ATI, NVIDIA has also put in its support for DisplayPort. Other consumer electronics companies such Philips and Samsung are also supporting the new standard. ATI representatives say DisplayPort will become the next major standard due to its high-bandwidth and low latency capabilities. Technically, DisplayPort takes on some other features of HDMI, which is based on DVI but also has lines to carry a multi-channel audio signal. DisplayPort too will also be able to carry audio as well as a high-bandwidth signal that will be able to display an image with a higher resolution than even dual-link DVI (2560x1600).

DailyTech previously reported about the new UDI standard which is suppose to replace DVI, and several other interfaces. UDI was last reported to be the next design that would unify digital displays interfaces. So far however, it appears as though DisplayPort has the majority support from the industry.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Just as useless as HDMI
By GatorLCA on 5/21/2006 10:31:16 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get why all these companies are backing these cables that transmit Audio and Video. I mean most people who buy HDTV's typically have Home Theater systems and have to use other inputs for sound. The same goes with PC users, most use a sound card. This technology is useless to the average PC user since many have external speakers for their PC that use either Onboard sound or a sound card. Yeah it's good if the monitor has speakers on it, but most don't.

I can understand the content protection but we already have that, it's called DVI-D. I can understand hardware requirements updating but not requiring a monitor upgrade.




RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By TheBaker on 5/21/2006 11:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree wholeheartedly! It has baffled me since the first announcements for HDMI as to why they would include audio and video on the same cable. I mean really, who has a $2,000 - $10,000 TV and doesn't have a surround system? Does that mean I have to use HDMI solely for the video portion of the stream? And then add a toslink to my receiver? WTF? Who asked for this, and why was it ever approved? Did the RIAA and MPAA get together and decide to fark the end-users?


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By Lakku on 5/21/2006 11:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
Because it is much easier to have one cable for digital audio and video. Cable boxes and stand alone DVD, BD, and HD-DVD players are good examples. All of them do digital audio and video, but why would you want a fiber cable along with component or DVI cables, when you can have all of that plus some on a single cable? As such, newer audio standards that will be a lot less compressed or lossless are coming soon, and those require 6 to 10 times the bandwidth of current audio standards. While I am sure fiber can handle it, why not just put it all on one high bandwidth connector?


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By GatorLCA on 5/21/2006 11:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
ummm....mainly because NO home theater receivers on the market have HDMI inputs or outputs


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By Tuanies on 5/22/2006 12:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
You sure about that? I can name about a dozen home theater recievers with HDMI--Panasonic XR-57, XR-70, Pioneer Elite 74TX, 72TX, Denon 2807, 3806, 5805, Onkyo 803, and more: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Tp5MHRX6Rfh/cgi-bin/p...

And HDMI carries audio so you can get 6-channel PCM for DVD-Audio and SACD instead of having to run 6 analog RCA cables.


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By PreOmegaZero on 5/22/2006 12:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ummm....mainly because NO home theater receivers on the market have HDMI inputs or outputs


http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV16...


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By CKDragon on 5/22/2006 1:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Just as the other two have pointed out... I spent 1 minute on bestbuy.com (of all places) and found this:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7455...

So I'm sure if a watered down place like that has an HDMI in/out receiver, the REAL tech stores have got them out the ying yang.

CK


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By probedb on 5/22/2006 5:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
Err they've been on high-end stuff for a while now and are available on much more mainstream receivers now! Keep up, technology advances you know!

Having both is good for those of us that connect our video sources into our amp which then does the switching between inputs. Having one cable between the source and the amp and then one between the amp and display is much better!


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By abhaxus on 5/23/2006 2:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
I can't tell you the number of people I have sold 42-50" HD plasmas to who do not own home theater systems and have no desire to get them. The number is similar to the number of people who complain about buying widescreen TVs and wish that large flat panels and microdisplays were made in 4:3 aspect ratio...

consumers are idiots. on one hand you have the ones that resist changes that are good (surround sound, widescreen TVs, which make your media experience more immersive) and on the other you have those that go off the deep end and believe everything they read about ridiculously priced bose audio and monster and honestly think that is the best on the market.

i will always have a special place in my heart for the guy that dropped 2 grand on a simple energy audio system, and asked me "well i know it isn't bose but is it close?"


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By nrb on 5/22/2006 9:22:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't get why all these companies are backing these cables that transmit Audio and Video.
Well, they aren't, really. HDMI is important for three reasons:

1) With the advent of high-definition video, you have to have a digital video transmission standard that supports HDCP encryption, otherwise none of the movie studios would ever actually release any high-definition content. So you'd have to switch to something besides DVI, even if it's only DVI+HDCP.

2) HDMI is considerably more resilient than DVI: you can make the cables longer, for example, without messing up the signal. Single-link DVI hits its useable limit at 1920x1200, and some DVI devices aren't too happy even at 1920x1080 (as some Nvidia graphics cards owners have discovered); so, with 1080p video in the offing (even if it's only the output from games consoles) you'd have to switch to [b]something[/b] else just to make it rugged enough.

3) S/PDIF cannot handle high-definition audio formats: there simply isn't enough bandwidth. This problem already exists with DVD-Audio and SACD: you can't send the digital data from a DVD-A disc to a multi-channel audio processor over S/PDIF. You have to use something like Meridian's MHR Smartlink, or Firewire (or HDMI). The same will apply to the next-generation audio formats used for movie soundtracks on BluRay and HD-DVD discs: S/PDIF simply won't cut it any more. So you need to change to [b]some[/b] other high-bandwidth digital audio link, and preferably one that supports encryption.

So, bascially, you need a new digital video connection anyway, and you need a new digital audio connection anyway; given that you need both, is it actually a [b]bad[/b] thing to push both of them through a single connector rather than introducing two new standards instead?


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By Araemo on 5/22/2006 10:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
sorry, but I don't buy Argument 1.

That was one of the major arguments for CSS encryption on DVDs. That studios wouldn't release high quality digital copies of their movies because they could be easily copied. Hence CSS. CSS was broken YEARS ago, but that hasn't slowed down DVD releases one bit.

Encryption isn't there so that they're willing to make/release/sell the content. It's there so they can force you to buy it multiple times(Once for your TV, once for your ipod, once for your car, once for your cell phone... got it?)


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By themelon on 5/22/2006 10:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but if you are just talking about video there is no difference between what DVI and HDMI support. They both support HDCP and they both use the same TMDS signaling and have the same distance limitations. The only difference is that HDMI can carry multi-channel audio over the same cable and it is a different connector. From what I have seen it is a pretty poor connector at that.


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By bob661 on 5/22/2006 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
S/PDIF cannot handle high-definition audio formats
You mean DD or DTS isn't high def audio? What's high def audio?


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By ArneBjarne on 5/22/2006 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm lets see,

Dolby Digital vs. Dolby Digital TrueHD
DTS vs. DTS-HD

and your asking whether or not the former are considered to be high def. I can certainly see how this is a tough nut to crack.


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By bob661 on 5/22/2006 3:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dolby Digital TrueHD
Looks like I need to do some reading. Thanks for the info.


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By bob661 on 5/22/2006 3:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dolby Digital TrueHD
Looks like I need to do some reading. Thanks for the info.


RE: Just as useless as HDMI
By brystmar on 5/22/2006 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
interesting fact: DD5.1 actually samples at a lower rate per channel (and doesn't sound as good) as CDs (16/44.1), even though DD is about 10 years newer than the redbook CD standard!

real HD audio is high-res SACD or DVD-Audio, which samples at 24/96 or 24/192. and i really hate how alot of new audio chips are calling themselves "HD Audio" when they actually aren't. they're just drawing on the success and popularity of HDTV to market their new products (along with the technical ignorance of the average consumer).


"HD" is the new buzzword
By Cunthor01 on 5/23/2006 2:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
... for this year. Last year it was anything with an "X" before the name, or somewhere in the sentance, and year before was the little 'i' (iPeed, or mac anything for that matter). Wonder what other stupid word will surface next...? Any takers?


people shouldn't change port standards
By Missing Ghost on 5/21/2006 11:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why they want this.
I still use rca jacks and vga ports!




RE: people shouldn't change port standards
By SteelyKen on 5/21/2006 11:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
Content "protection", I imagine.


RE: people shouldn't change port standards
By Burning Bridges on 5/22/2006 7:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
BS - HDMI has that already.