Print 58 comment(s) - last by OxBow.. on May 24 at 4:39 PM

Photo courtesy of
DisplayPort takes the lead over UDI and HDMI for computer displays

Consumers have made one thing clear about the tech industry over the past several years: format wars are confusing and often times deliver more issues than solutions. Display technologies consisting of DisplayPort, HDMI and UDI have all been ferociously vying for industry support over the past two years. Despite a strong push from all three standards, DisplayPort crossed a major milestone in April when it received approval by VESA to be an industry standard.

The big question on most consumers' minds however, is the proliferation of products that actually use the DisplayPort standard.

This week at a business strategy meeting at Dell, the company showed off what it calls the next generation in LCD displays. Dell demonstrated a prototype LCD panel based on DisplayPort. DisplayPort has several advantages that will allow manufacturers to design thinner LCD panels,  Dell's chief technology officer Kevin Kettler said.

Kettler showed a LCD that was only half an inch in thickness. The panel also incorporated speakers and a microphone. Audio and video signals route through a single DisplayPort cable. DisplayPort LCD panels will be available later this year, Kettler claims.

The DisplayPort standard recently wowed consumers by adopting a standard that takes advantage of fiber optic cables for signaling. Using technology from a leading DisplayPort task force member named Luxtera, DisplayPort devices that use fiber optics will be able to accept cable lengths unheard of in the industry.

Comments     Threshold

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

Thinness and Cables
By ChronoReverse on 5/18/2007 2:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Could someone explain to me how a cable and connector standard would lead to a thinner panel?

Aren't all three standards digital and thus have somewhat similar requirements?

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Murst on 5/18/2007 2:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing that really comes to mind would be if the displayport somehow did not require as much processing of the signal as DVI, for example... that would mean that the hardware (and all associated fans, etc) wouldn't need to take up as much space... but that's just a guess.

If anyone really knows the answer to this, I'd love to read about it.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By jpeyton on 5/18/2007 5:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are easily amazed.

All Dell did is take a bare LCD panel and affix a sheet of Lexan/polycarbonate onto the front.

Already been done by modders for cheap:

I personally hope it doesn't have that huge of a bezel, as pictured; my desk space is limited as is.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By heffeque on 5/18/2007 5:35:19 PM , Rating: 1
They must have never seen one of these iMacs before:

RE: Thinness and Cables
By ChronoReverse on 5/18/2007 6:19:19 PM , Rating: 3
Did you reply the wrong posts? I'm not commenting on the design of the panel but rather the claim that DisplayPort will lead to thinner panels.

See, I don't follow how DisplayPort would reduce the electronics for conversion anymore than HDMI would. And if they're comparing to the old VGA cable, the claim becomes disingenuous to be polite.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By sxr7171 on 5/19/2007 7:34:17 PM , Rating: 3
Simple. The connector is way thinner and shorter than the current DVI connector, and if placed on the bezel vertically can allow for thinner displays.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By phusg on 5/22/2007 3:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
They are comparing it to HDMI and UDI (which are both thinner and shorter) as the article does, and not to the previous generation DVI.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Bigginz on 5/18/2007 2:54:27 PM , Rating: 5
If you click on the link to the article at you will find the answer. One of the Dell exec's says "By eliminating a lot of the electronics used for video conversion, new LCD monitors will be super-thin, and super sleek."

Personally, I am waiting on an 24 or 27 inch OLED monitor with 1920x1080 resolution, DisplayPort or HDMI connections for about $500 USD. I might be waiting 2 or 3 years.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Murst on 5/18/2007 2:59:14 PM , Rating: 5
Can't wait to play DNF on my OLED!

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Pirks on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Thinness and Cables
By Slappi on 5/19/2007 9:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
I miss Duke. Hopefully it will see the light of day.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By noxipoo on 5/18/2007 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
try 5-7 years, maybe

RE: Thinness and Cables
By TheDrD on 5/18/2007 4:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, yup

RE: Thinness and Cables
By MetaDFF on 5/18/2007 4:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the vast majority of the space inside an LCD monitor occupied by the CCFLs and power conversion circuits? The DSP electronics themselves are already quite small.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By ChronoReverse on 5/18/2007 6:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I thought too especially since all the new standards are digital.

Either the claim is bogus or they're comparing with the old VGA cables (which would need more converting) or there's something about DisplayPort that's quite unusual.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Fluppeteer on 5/21/2007 8:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
Quite - I can see no reason why thinness, of all things, should be an argument for DisplayPort. It might apply inside a laptop, where DisplayPort is trying to replace LVDS with a lower-wire-count video interconnect, but for desktop devices the DisplayPort connector isn't significantly smaller than HDMI. A DVI TMDS receiver is tiny, but even a decent VGA ADC chip is hardly huge.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By PsYStuMmY on 5/20/2007 5:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
we don't really need thinner lcds. they are already thin enough. what i see want to see the picture quality improving, like with led technology.

RE: Thinness and Cables
By Belard on 5/22/2007 4:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
1920x1080?? That is such a LOW resolution...

1920x1200 is standard for todays 24" LCDs. The 27~30 models offer more pixels - think beyond the HD-TV.

By Xavian on 5/18/2007 2:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
WOW, that screen looks awesome, did Dell steal some designers from Apple or something, just wow.

RE: wow...
By darkpaw on 5/18/2007 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 3
I really don't get why people always say Apple has good designers. For the past few years their design for pretty much everything has been "shiny white box".

RE: wow...
By ATC on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow...
By EntreHoras on 5/18/2007 3:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
Q: What else is a mac than a shiny white box?

A: A wannabe-cool guy in TV ads.

RE: wow...
By ATC on 5/18/2007 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
good one.

Seriously, when apple brought in the shiny white box years ago it was cool and nothing was like it. Of course now everyone has a shiny white box in one of their designs but it's out of fashion now. Everyone is waiting to see what the next thing to come out from their labs.

Look at their Mac Pro tower line, Mac Book Pro, the iPhone that will be released in a few weeks and the rumoured new design of the iMac and iPods.

To say that apple doesn't have good industrial designers is absolutely ridiculous no matter how much one hates apple.

RE: wow...
By kkwst2 on 5/18/2007 10:22:39 PM , Rating: 5
I think to say "everyone" is waiting to see what the next Apple product looks like is a little out of perspective. From where I sit, "everyone" is waiting to see the new Santa Rosa Thinkpads. If everyone wanted an Apple, they wouldn't be such a niche player in everything except PMP's.

I don't hate Apple, but I don't like a lot of their designs. I think you could make an argument that they design themselves right out of most boardrooms.

I guess it depends on how you define "good" as to whether the statement is ridiculous. I personally think Apple's laptop designs are mediocre. They've gotten better, but they're still a little cheesy for me. I do like the Mac Pro's. They're solid and thoughtfully laid out.

RE: wow...
By ksherman on 5/18/2007 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty sure Apple has many other products that arent shiny white boxes... take a gander at their store and you will find that aluminum wins the day...

RE: wow...
By exdeath on 5/18/2007 3:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Most of Apples products look more like sex toys than electronic devices. Glass and aluminum I can do, but the curvy bulbous ergonomic dildo shaped stuff I can do without.

RE: wow...
By Soviet Robot on 5/18/2007 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
LOL. so true.

RE: wow...
By OxBow on 5/24/2007 4:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
You must have missed the story about the IGasm, then.

Available this year?
By cochy on 5/18/2007 3:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to know that it will be available this year, but how long until video card manufactures adopt displayport?

RE: Available this year?
By TheDrD on 5/18/2007 4:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wondering that as well...Heck they're isnt even any HDMI cards out their (I think)...

RE: Available this year?
By elmer92413 on 5/18/2007 9:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
There are a handful of cards that have HDMI.

RE: Available this year?
By GlassHouse69 on 5/19/2007 12:26:08 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I thought about this as well.

Finally, 2900 line has hdcp. just in case I dont use a hacked player, which of course I will. so who cares.

yeah. well I gues thats that. But, I do wonder what the companies will do now for vid cards. I mean, who wants to have 2 standards? Both suck. dvi is fine enough.

RE: Available this year?
By Fluppeteer on 5/21/2007 9:19:39 AM , Rating: 3
Dell (et al.) have been pushing for DisplayPort for a while. This mostly seems to be about corporate politics, although there's always a chance that someone wants a standard with a DRM scheme that's harder to break than HDCP.

Cue rant:

The standards situation is a mess. People are pushing HDMI because it's "better" than DVI. That'll be "better" as in "exactly the same electrical signals with the VGA and dual-link support removed", then? (Assuming type A HDMI, since almost nobody uses type B). You can run an HDMI signal over a DVI connector - hence the adaptors - and the HDMI standard is a superset of the DVI one. There's really no good reason for putting an HDMI connector on a PC when a DVI connector with a dongle can do exactly the same, but more capably.

The situation has slightly changed with HDMI 1.3, which ups the bandwidth of a type-A HDMI connector to about the same as dual-link DVI, but in an incompatible way (because encouraging people to use type B HDMI, which *is* compatible with dual-link DVI, would have been too difficult).

So we first had DVI, which most people implemented as single link and everyone ignored for ages because, well, why use a 165MHz DVI pixel clock when you have a perfectly good 400MHz VGA one? (Note all the 2048x1536 cheap monitors flooding the market...) Well, actually, we had LFH60/DMS59 and the 1600SW's LVDS connector, all of which are arguably nicer than DVI-D, but that's history now.

Eventually, people got around to implementing dual-link DVI, which caused desparate confusion even among card manufacturers because "dual-link DVI" and "dual DVI" are two very different things; as someone who spent months tracking down a 6800 derivative to run my T221 (yes, there were monitors that took dual-link before the 30" ones) I had plenty of experience of the confusion. Fortunately the 30" screens came out, and consumer cards started sprouting the extra TMDS lines. These days dual-link is more common, so long as you don't mind the support being a bit flakey and HDCP being missing on one link (8800).

Meanwhile, HDMI was being pushed, because the consumers obviously want to spend a fortune (at the time) on an HDTV and still use the integrated speakers, and using the same DVI connector that the rest of the world was using would mean there was a chance that when the cat fell down the back of the telly the connector might *not* snap like a twig. (HDMI worries me from that point of view; try breaking a SCART connector...) Knowing that it shouldn't be inferior to DVI, there were type A (single link), and type B (dual link) versions, but, unlike DVI, you can't put a single-link connector in a dual-link hole (although obviously you could get an adaptor). Since nobody (at the time) needed dual-link, the type B connector was dead in the water, and HDMI had no future-proofing.

This was especially true since the TV manufacturers were trying so hard not to support the WUXGA resolution that monitors have had no trouble with for years. (We're HD! Well, 720p. No, more, we're 1366x768, so that must be better even though we can't display either resolution at 1:1! Ah, but we've got a real 1080 panel; er, only 1080i, though, and overscanned so we can't actually do 1:1. Newly announced - we can do 1080p at 1:1 - oh, sorry, 1080p at *60*Hz - no, we only do 30Hz. And there's no difference between 1080p and 1080i, said the HD-DVD crowd at one point. Meanwhile, the monitor manufacturers, trying to compete, have turned the 22" monitor standard from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050, and called it an improvement. All of which are within the single-link DVI limit, as anyone with a Dell 2405FPW would know.)

This might be a good time to mention, in passing, HDCP - whether it was available, whether it was working, the fact that it was cracked before it was released, and the general mistreatment of early adopters who dared to buy HDTVs that suddenly wouldn't display DRM material. That went well.

Finally, several years after the appearance of 3840x2400 monitors, after the announcement of 3840x2160 televisions, and after a number of panels capable of >24bpp (again, which VGA and CRTs have had since early Matrox days), someone realised the picture might look better if they could up the bandwidth, the approved dual-link way of doing this was ignored, and HDMI 1.3 was born.

Ignoring UDI (everyone seems to be, now), DisplayPort entered all this with a plan to be the one true universal connector - although it's now scaled that back as a complement to HDMI. It's *not* electrically compatible with HDMI or DVI (you need more than wires in the adaptor), and in its fully specced out form it provides about the same bandwidth as a type B HDMI 1.3 connector would, if anybody made them. Note the "fully specced out" bit - DisplayPort has support for a variable number of channels, just like the single/dual-link DVI business. Since the DVI mess caused a spectacular amount of confusion, I expect exactly the same again, and I'll be astonished if the first DisplayPort devices have the maximum bandwidth capability.

I'd love a connector that can drive my T221 directly, but frankly a couple of DVI cables isn't so difficult, and making everyone go through a hardware refresh cycle while three out of four monitors on my desk are still VGA CRTs, especially while DisplayPort doesn't add significantly over existing technology for the average consumer, is hardly going to make the display industry many more friends. Occasionally someone has the gall to suggest that consumer take-up of HDTV isn't as fast as expected; this might be because everybody's "expert friend" has the sense to tell people to wait for the smoke to clear.

If you think all this is a mess, you should see how EDID handled DVI...

'Scuse me for being a little bitter. I really don't see DisplayPort doing the industry any favours.

By bbomb on 5/18/2007 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 5
So 3? 4? 5? years until video card come with displayport ports now? Eventually we will have about 10 connectors on the back of video cards because these fucking idiots cant decide what the fuck they want to do.

RE: .
By splint on 5/18/2007 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that – but not by much. It’s not that “they” can’t decide on a standard. It’s that all these standards come with associated royalty fees, so it takes the market a bit of time to make a choice.

On a side note, was the parent modded down just because he used profanity? This is the internet not the Disney channel. In general, this constant standards battle is pissing me off as well.

RE: .
By Fluppeteer on 5/21/2007 9:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
True, there are royalty fees. Anyone prepared to spend the couple of cents per device that HDMI costs (with HDCP thrown in as a discount)? Thought so. The cost to the industry of replacing everything with a new standard is going to be hugely higher. Not that I'd expect an industry that is trying to move away from the DVI connector because (AFAICT) it costs a few cents more than the HDMI one to look at the bigger picture.

Wholeheartedly agreed about the connector war. You can't even stick a (trivial) dongle on DisplayPort to convert between it and DVI/HDMI.

Fiber optic
By Doormat on 5/18/2007 10:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
The fiber optic thing is awesome. You can string a fiber optic cable through a smaller conduit than DVI (since you have to fish the DVI connector through the conduit with the cable instead of crimping one on afterwards). Plus you can have a PC back behind a wall for a presentation room or HTPC setup. The only thing we need now is USB over fiber optic that doesnt cost $500 for 50m/160ft.

RE: Fiber optic
By dajeepster on 5/18/2007 10:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing we need now is USB over fiber optic that doesnt cost $500 for 50m/160ft.


RE: Fiber optic
By eppenoire on 5/20/2007 10:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Never heard of one of these before eh?

Refresh Rate
By Haltech on 5/18/2007 6:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know the refresh rate on these things? Improvment or Less? Looks to me just like a LCD screen with a different port and a clear case for it.

RE: Refresh Rate
By Treckin on 5/19/2007 6:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
From my understanding, and I could easily be wrong, the display standard is not the bottleneck in monitors refresh rate, but rather the imbedded display technology (whatever yours may be) even in DVI, there is no bandwidth issue.

I would be curoius as well, to bring the shit back on topic, what the differnce is exactly in the standard, and in particular what sparked the need for a new one

RE: Refresh Rate
By mnmr on 5/23/2007 11:53:28 AM , Rating: 3
The primary motivation for pushing DisplayPort over existing connectors are "exorbitant" royalty fees for HDCP, the copy protection mechanism used with HDMI/DVI. Additional bandwidth is great but almost certainly not the primary reason why DisplayPort was developed.

This is also a major point of concern not really addressed in the above: will you be able play your content-protected movies? What happens if sound needs to go to a HDCP device and video to a DPCP device? Fortunately you can download pirated copies of the movies you own, so you don't have to deal with all this crap :o)

One Of The Nicest
By creathir on 5/18/2007 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is by far, one of the nicest looking displays I have seen in a LONG time. If this is real, kudos to Dell. Now lets get the panel out the door and into our hands!
- Creathir

RE: One Of The Nicest
By bunnyfubbles on 5/18/2007 6:52:52 PM , Rating: 3
IMO its a piece of crap, all that unnecessary clear plastic just to contain speakers? Trim all the crap off and just give me the display please.

hopefully speakers etc optional...
By Tiamat on 5/18/2007 2:42:07 PM , Rating: 4
I hope they have a version that doesnt have the speakers attached. I couldn't care less about any of those peripherals. Just gimme a nice looking screen without any other doodads for a nice price and I'm satisfied :)

Looks nice but...
By exdeath on 5/18/2007 3:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Looks nice by...

Function > Form.

Nobody seems to be concerned about the reflection and glare...

RE: Looks nice but...
By TheDrD on 5/18/2007 4:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Heh great point

By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 5/18/2007 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
This is a good thing... what size is this display? Display port will allow resolutions > 1920X1200 with a single cable. Where are the video cards that use display port?

RE: Good
By reazahmed on 5/19/2007 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
It will support up to 4x the current HDTV resolutions

As stated at, its promising.

IMO 8800/2900 series can handle resolutions for now (with some converters for connection).

By Eurasianman on 5/18/2007 3:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, looks kind of ugly to me. I think I'll just stick with the Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP.

That thing looks like it'd be way to fragile to even more or touch! Looks like you'd snap it by just trying to re-adjust the monitor!

They better have one hell of a packaging system for that monitor though! That's all I have to say! LOL

RE: Um...
By SiliconAddict on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Um...
By Eurasianman on 5/19/2007 11:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
Don't like glass =P

I prefer plastic XP

By dice1111 on 5/18/2007 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
I really like the look of that display. About time PC displays got a lot fancier.

Looks fantastic.
By masa77 on 5/18/2007 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
So much for the fancypants Apple displays. That is one very cool looking displays and it's for the PC, which makes it even 'cooler'.

Is everythat that impressed?
By qrhetoric on 5/21/2007 7:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Is everyone really that impressed? I finally got DVI, and now this thing comes along with dubious benefits? I couldn't care less. And I'm sure after it's out for a bit, they're going to say if all your software isn't sent for verification of authenticity, or if you try to play any home videos, your resolution will be downgraded. I'll stick with DVI.

By b2386 on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: First
By TomZ on 5/19/2007 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Last. :o)

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki