You ain't lyin'. DP is such a NICE standard, and it's being overlooked in favor of a hacky upgrade of DVI, which was a hacky digital interface to start. A hacky update that costs money to implement despite being blatantly inferior to the free standard.
Not true since DP supports active cabling in the specification. Host power is guaranteed for various in-line amplifiers, media conversion (fiber) and active conversion to different displays standards.
The various fiber HDMI solutions that embedded a fiber transmitter/receiver take power off of the HDMI hot plug pin which is not guaranteed to provide enough current to drive the transmitter/receiver. I've had plenty of devices simply not work with those cables because of that. Which makes sense as these do not fall into the HDMI spec.
The LG 5K Ultrafine displays uses TB3 to send the video signal as two independent DP 1.2 streams (2560 x 2800). A PC with TB3 should be able to drive this at full resolution but it requires drivers to do so since its is TB3 device. This also requires that the PC manufacturer to have connected two DP 1.2 ports into the TB3 controller (several have only connected one). I was able to hook up a Dell 5510m to this displays at a trade show prior to wide release in 2016 and just got TB errors and no picture.
Internally, this monitor acts as if it is a two cable solution due to the two DP 1.2 streams being encapsulated. The timing issues prior two cable solutions are resolved due the demux of both streams sharing a common sync.
To make matters more fun, Intel's new TB3 controllers just announced will encapsulate a single DB1.3/1.4 stream. For monitor makers, they'll still need to support the more complex dual DP 1.2 stream to maintain backwards compatibility with prior TB3 controllers.
DP1.4 GPU support only became available last year. Prior to then 5k60 needed 2xdisplayport cables or the equivalent. Presumably whatever Apple's doing to get 5k over a single TB3 cable (native support is limited to 4k60, presumably they're sending part of the video signal as part of the general data payload) lacks driver support on Windows/Linux.
The lack of good cabling support (2x cable got a really bad reputation due to buggy implementations when the 1st 4k displays came out) until recently has probably been a major factor in holding back any manufacturer interest in 5k displays. Now I suspect the main limiting factor is the display makers seeing a bigger potential market in 4k 120/144 displays and putting their initial efforts there instead. That's mostly an assumption on my part, AUO has been trying to get a 4k 144 panel to production since 2017Q2 (although I suspect the 384 zone HDR part is the problem), no other panel maker has talked about new 4k120/144 or 5k60 displays anywhere that the maintainer of TFTCentral's panel DB has seen.
The monitors will come, the cable standard needs to be in place first. 64.8 Gbps is plenty to do 4K@144Hz with 12-bit colour, 5K@120Hz with 12-bit, or 5K@144Hz with 10-bit. None of these are possible with DP1.4, and even HDMI 2.1 can only handle the first one.
Last paragraph: "On a final note, what’s interesting is that in the VESA’s brief announcement, nothing is being said about their plans for cabling or ports. With USB-C’s DisplayPort Alt Mode, the need for a dedicated DisplayPort and cabling has decreased. And at the same time the industry as a whole is gravitating towards reusing USB-C ports and cables for all high bandwidth I/O needs. So it will be interesting to see whether the VESA keeps their own port and cabling for the next DisplayPort standard, or whether it becomes purely a new signaling standard for DisplayPort Alt Mode."
"this would mean a cable that can offer 64.8 Gbps or better of bandwidth"
Are you sure that VESA is talking about doubling the raw bandwidth and not the usable bandwidth? It would seem sensible for them to move to a more efficient encoding at this point like USB, PCIe and Ethernet have done.
Wow, I am shocked that they are still using 8b/10b encoding (had to look that up). Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see them move to something like 128b/130b in the next rev... it would be silly not to.
The VESA has historically quoted raw bandwidth rather than effective bandwidth. But right now they aren't saying anything more than "twice the bandwidth", so a reduction in overhead is definitely not off the table.
If you want 8192 x 3072 resolution today and the 2.67:1 aspect ratio, you could do it today using LED tiles at 256 x 256 base resolution. Just don't ask about the price or how large it'll be.
A quick search on a national (Denmark) PC parts price checker gave me 867 monitors with displayport support and 1102 with HDMI. It should be easy to find.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
Back to Article
Lolimaster - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
When old fashioned business stops the better good.HDMI needs to die.
Lord of the Bored - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
You ain't lyin'. DP is such a NICE standard, and it's being overlooked in favor of a hacky upgrade of DVI, which was a hacky digital interface to start. A hacky update that costs money to implement despite being blatantly inferior to the free standard.alexvoda - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
AFAIK HDMI does have one technical advantage over DisplayPort: longer cable lengths.Kevin G - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
Not true since DP supports active cabling in the specification. Host power is guaranteed for various in-line amplifiers, media conversion (fiber) and active conversion to different displays standards.The various fiber HDMI solutions that embedded a fiber transmitter/receiver take power off of the HDMI hot plug pin which is not guaranteed to provide enough current to drive the transmitter/receiver. I've had plenty of devices simply not work with those cables because of that. Which makes sense as these do not fall into the HDMI spec.
nfriedly - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Ehy are there practically no monitors out there that support DP 1.3/1.4 or > 4k resolution?Even the LG 5k ultrafine monitor ends up using DP1.2 @ 4k when connected to anything besides macOS :(
nfriedly - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Why*Kevin G - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
The LG 5K Ultrafine displays uses TB3 to send the video signal as two independent DP 1.2 streams (2560 x 2800). A PC with TB3 should be able to drive this at full resolution but it requires drivers to do so since its is TB3 device. This also requires that the PC manufacturer to have connected two DP 1.2 ports into the TB3 controller (several have only connected one). I was able to hook up a Dell 5510m to this displays at a trade show prior to wide release in 2016 and just got TB errors and no picture.Internally, this monitor acts as if it is a two cable solution due to the two DP 1.2 streams being encapsulated. The timing issues prior two cable solutions are resolved due the demux of both streams sharing a common sync.
To make matters more fun, Intel's new TB3 controllers just announced will encapsulate a single DB1.3/1.4 stream. For monitor makers, they'll still need to support the more complex dual DP 1.2 stream to maintain backwards compatibility with prior TB3 controllers.
DanNeely - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
DP1.4 GPU support only became available last year. Prior to then 5k60 needed 2xdisplayport cables or the equivalent. Presumably whatever Apple's doing to get 5k over a single TB3 cable (native support is limited to 4k60, presumably they're sending part of the video signal as part of the general data payload) lacks driver support on Windows/Linux.The lack of good cabling support (2x cable got a really bad reputation due to buggy implementations when the 1st 4k displays came out) until recently has probably been a major factor in holding back any manufacturer interest in 5k displays. Now I suspect the main limiting factor is the display makers seeing a bigger potential market in 4k 120/144 displays and putting their initial efforts there instead. That's mostly an assumption on my part, AUO has been trying to get a 4k 144 panel to production since 2017Q2 (although I suspect the 384 zone HDR part is the problem), no other panel maker has talked about new 4k120/144 or 5k60 displays anywhere that the maintainer of TFTCentral's panel DB has seen.
r3loaded - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
The monitors will come, the cable standard needs to be in place first. 64.8 Gbps is plenty to do 4K@144Hz with 12-bit colour, 5K@120Hz with 12-bit, or 5K@144Hz with 10-bit. None of these are possible with DP1.4, and even HDMI 2.1 can only handle the first one.Pinn - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
tldr, can it use usb-C on both ends?DanNeely - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Last paragraph: "On a final note, what’s interesting is that in the VESA’s brief announcement, nothing is being said about their plans for cabling or ports. With USB-C’s DisplayPort Alt Mode, the need for a dedicated DisplayPort and cabling has decreased. And at the same time the industry as a whole is gravitating towards reusing USB-C ports and cables for all high bandwidth I/O needs. So it will be interesting to see whether the VESA keeps their own port and cabling for the next DisplayPort standard, or whether it becomes purely a new signaling standard for DisplayPort Alt Mode."Dark_Complex - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
"this would mean a cable that can offer 64.8 Gbps or better of bandwidth"Are you sure that VESA is talking about doubling the raw bandwidth and not the usable bandwidth? It would seem sensible for them to move to a more efficient encoding at this point like USB, PCIe and Ethernet have done.
extide - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
Wow, I am shocked that they are still using 8b/10b encoding (had to look that up). Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see them move to something like 128b/130b in the next rev... it would be silly not to.Ryan Smith - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
The VESA has historically quoted raw bandwidth rather than effective bandwidth. But right now they aren't saying anything more than "twice the bandwidth", so a reduction in overhead is definitely not off the table.ummduh - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
Meanwhile in the real world, I literally couldn't find a single DP monitor to buy locally in a rather large city. Not a single one of any size.linuxgeex - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
What I'd really like is an 80" curved 8192x3072 display. Hopefully that's doable in the next 2 years.Please, nobody suggest 3 4k projectors.
Kevin G - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
If you want 8192 x 3072 resolution today and the 2.67:1 aspect ratio, you could do it today using LED tiles at 256 x 256 base resolution. Just don't ask about the price or how large it'll be.Mumrik - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
A quick search on a national (Denmark) PC parts price checker gave me 867 monitors with displayport support and 1102 with HDMI. It should be easy to find.pixelstuff - Saturday, January 6, 2018 - link
Now if we could just get the TV/Blu-ray device manufacturers to put these on all their devices.