![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Will displayport take over DVI?
- Thread starter cpthk
- Start date
Displayport is shaping up to be the next universal connector for computers and related, especially with the new ATi cards largely choosing it over DVI and HDMI. It wouldn't surprise me if DP ended up taking over HDMI's spot as well on TVs and such considering its royalty-free nature and smaller variety of incompatible cables.
DP will replace DVI eventually. As refresh rates and resolutions get bigger they will need a cable with high enough bandwidth. DP and HDMI have both improved on this in later revisions and it will be the real driving force to change from DVI. DVI is starting to max out as you get over 2560x1600@60hz .
Just as the old 15-pin VGA faded away, you will have both around for a long time. VGA finally stopped being a regular feature on high-end video cards, though its still around on some laptops and whatnot.
edit: Grabbing this from an earlier post, not sure its 100% accurate but:
1680x1050@60Hz = 2.54 Gb/sec
1920x1200@60Hz = 3.32 Gb/sec
Single-link DVI maximum speed: 3.96 Gb/sec
1680x1050@120Hz = 5.08 Gb/sec
DisplayPort 2 pairs maximum speed = 5.40 Gb/sec
2560x1600@60Hz = 5.90 Gb/sec
1920x1200@120Hz = 6.64 Gb/sec
Dual-link DVI maximum speed = 7.92 Gb/sec
1680x1050@240Hz = 10.16 Gb/sec
HDMI v1.3 maximum speed = 10.20 Gb/sec
DisplayPort 4 pairs maximum speed = 10.80 Gb/sec
2560x1600@120Hz = 11.80 Gb/sec
1920x1200@240Hz = 13.28 Gb/sec
HDMI Type B maximum speed = 20.40 Gb/sec
2560x1600@240Hz = 23.60 Gb/sec
Just as the old 15-pin VGA faded away, you will have both around for a long time. VGA finally stopped being a regular feature on high-end video cards, though its still around on some laptops and whatnot.
edit: Grabbing this from an earlier post, not sure its 100% accurate but:
1680x1050@60Hz = 2.54 Gb/sec
1920x1200@60Hz = 3.32 Gb/sec
Single-link DVI maximum speed: 3.96 Gb/sec
1680x1050@120Hz = 5.08 Gb/sec
DisplayPort 2 pairs maximum speed = 5.40 Gb/sec
2560x1600@60Hz = 5.90 Gb/sec
1920x1200@120Hz = 6.64 Gb/sec
Dual-link DVI maximum speed = 7.92 Gb/sec
1680x1050@240Hz = 10.16 Gb/sec
HDMI v1.3 maximum speed = 10.20 Gb/sec
DisplayPort 4 pairs maximum speed = 10.80 Gb/sec
2560x1600@120Hz = 11.80 Gb/sec
1920x1200@240Hz = 13.28 Gb/sec
HDMI Type B maximum speed = 20.40 Gb/sec
2560x1600@240Hz = 23.60 Gb/sec
Last edited:
HDMI has already replaced DVI. ATI cards have HDMI port and my latest LCD has no DVI port and HDMI instead. This monitor has speakers inside it too so get audio straight over HDMI to it from the ATI 5870. Speakers inside LCD are crap but it does have audio out to connect to better speakers and also has a headphone jack.
Menelmarar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Messages
- 5,472
One product, one scenario does not make it a general rule.
Uh... HDMI is DVI. The video signal is electrically identical, which is why you can have simple passive adapters or cables with a different connector on each end. The only real difference is that with DVI there is the option for DVI-A which carries the old VGA analog signal and HDMI which can carry an audio signal.
DisplayPort is a higher bandwidth spec and will become the standard. Until the next one.
DisplayPort is a higher bandwidth spec and will become the standard. Until the next one.
I would live to direct you to a previous post.
HDMI is DVI with audio, as stated. This makes it a good one-cable solution to everybody with a home theatre. For people driving 30" monitors, there is not enough bandwidth to drive that many pixels. Thus HDMI is an unacceptable standard in the computing world.
While I agree with what you are saying in principle, it is still false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Digital_video_interconnects
I think they should just eventually migrate everything to HDMI. DisplayPort is mostly pointless IMO at this point as it does not bring anything to the table. I still like DVI on my monitors, and still have no reason to use anything different cause even if HDMI does completely take over, you can always use passive adapters to go to DVI no problem with no loss.
DVI was fine before, HDMI brought audio integration and slightly higher bandwidth, what does DisplayPort do? I have heard of the future things it can do, and a few nice things for manufactures, but as end consumers it is really no difference at this point.
My fear will be that when they do add the cooler things to Display port it will be a newer revision anyways, so no need to invest in it now.
DVI was fine before, HDMI brought audio integration and slightly higher bandwidth, what does DisplayPort do? I have heard of the future things it can do, and a few nice things for manufactures, but as end consumers it is really no difference at this point.
My fear will be that when they do add the cooler things to Display port it will be a newer revision anyways, so no need to invest in it now.
Argh. Sorry, I made a generalisation - generally I try to stay out of those.
At anyrate, I had never heard of HDMI Type B, but Wikipedia offer the explanation.
linked Wiki page said:
I admit, the standard is there, but its only on paper so far.
The main reason I favor displayport is that it supposedly can drive monitors directly instead of those wonderful things known as scalars. Other then that, a connector is a connector.
One other thing I forgot to mention that I like about DVI...the connector is a lot more robust. Yes, a bit bulkier, but the connectors on the boards are much more solid in my experience than HDMI which is smaller and more fragile. Not a big issue for consumers, but in more commercial applications I can see it being an issue.
Still, HDMI 1.3 and DisplayPort both offer bandwidth within .6Gb/s of each other.
Exactly why HDMI is designed soley for consumer electronics. For professional computing displays, DVI was the standard, now DisplayPort will take over like DVI did for VGA.
HDMI is designed for consumer electronics, not the computing industry. See my first post in this thread.
Grentz said:
Exactly why HDMI is designed soley for consumer electronics. For professional computing displays, DVI was the standard, now DisplayPort will take over like DVI did for VGA.
HDMI is designed for consumer electronics, not the computing industry. See my first post in this thread.
Wikipedia.com said:
DVI can carry audio as well. [SL-]DVI and HDMI only differ by one pin: the CEC bus in HDMI. Of course HDMI is always single link, so we will have to wait to see if 2560x monitors are ever driven by HDMI.
Fair enough, then they should stop this BS of marketing the crap out of monitors with HDMI. Now any monitor that does not have HDMI these days gets bashed to hell for it by professional and consumer reviews....pretty stupid IMO. I understand if you want to connect a console or something, but for most a PC monitor is a PC monitor and just needs to connect properly to your computer. Which DVI is perfect for. The exception being if your monitor has sound and you dont want to run an extra cable...but even then it is annoying to have to purposefully buy a video card that supports that function.
I like DVI the most, and will probably love DisplayPort once it comes out in full force and not just extremely expensive niche markets as it is right now.
I like DVI the most, and will probably love DisplayPort once it comes out in full force and not just extremely expensive niche markets as it is right now.
Yes, but it is not widely industry supported to carry audio on most available devices. I have yet to see a PC monitor that can use DVI for audio for example.
One reason why I'd love to see DP wipe the floor with HDMI is due to the poor cable and connector quality of the latter. When my housemate got a new HDTV he went through three HDMI cables before he found one which didn't cause issues with HDCP crapping out at random because either side didn't respond within time or so. Ultimately the cheapest, 5 Euro HDMI cable worked unlike the two much more expensive ones. HDMI/HDCP handshake response is poorly defined in the specification, as are the connector types, which have a tendency to remove themselves from the port they're connected to.
In comparison the DP spec is far more clear on these important things leading to far less of such most annoying issues. With the differences between HDMI 1.2/.3/.4 there are a lot of compatibility issues as well, not to mention one has to get the right HDMI cable for each standard and feature set one uses. It's downright infuriating at times.
In comparison the DP spec is far more clear on these important things leading to far less of such most annoying issues. With the differences between HDMI 1.2/.3/.4 there are a lot of compatibility issues as well, not to mention one has to get the right HDMI cable for each standard and feature set one uses. It's downright infuriating at times.
What does it actually mean that DisplayPort can directly drive an LCD? What is different about DVI such that it couldn't be equally capable of direct drive, with an LCD panel designed to accept it?
Wouldn't it have to mean that a DisplayPort direct-drive-compatible video card would need detailed knowledge of all the tics and quirks of every conceivable LCD in existence, so that it could do things like "pixel-walk" inversion, overdriving, etc? And doesn't it mean that if a new display technology came out that had its own new quirks, the older video cards wouldn't be able to drive it directly?
Or does it mean that each display would be able to upload some firmware to the video card connected to it, in some universal byte code, so that the video card could implement all of the oddities involved in driving that particular display directly?
Wouldn't it have to mean that a DisplayPort direct-drive-compatible video card would need detailed knowledge of all the tics and quirks of every conceivable LCD in existence, so that it could do things like "pixel-walk" inversion, overdriving, etc? And doesn't it mean that if a new display technology came out that had its own new quirks, the older video cards wouldn't be able to drive it directly?
Or does it mean that each display would be able to upload some firmware to the video card connected to it, in some universal byte code, so that the video card could implement all of the oddities involved in driving that particular display directly?
If an LCD doesn't correctly implement its DP interface things just won't work right. A card manufacturer could choose to circumvent certain bugs, but they'd be foolish to do so.
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache...ive&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl&client=firefox-a
That's an article describing the direct drive concept. See the picture: http://www.computerpoweruser.com/images/smartcomputing/fullsize/01303631.jpg
There's still some electronics between the GPU and LCD panel, the actual driving is still done by a dedicated controller. Scaling and such is taken care of by the GPU, however, which are fairly generic operations.
Elledan, I found that article and it didn't answer my questions. :-\
What I don't understand is, if all that DisplayPort's so-called "direct-drive" is doing is allowing the LCD to avoid the work of scaling, what makes it any different than DVI LCDs (such as 30" ones) that have no scaler and virtually zero input lag? It makes it seem like a design choice for LCDs having nothing to do with the choice between DisplayPort and DVI.
What I don't understand is, if all that DisplayPort's so-called "direct-drive" is doing is allowing the LCD to avoid the work of scaling, what makes it any different than DVI LCDs (such as 30" ones) that have no scaler and virtually zero input lag? It makes it seem like a design choice for LCDs having nothing to do with the choice between DisplayPort and DVI.
Last edited:
I'm hardly a hardware engineer, but from what I understand LCDs have a lot of conversion, scaling and other hardware before the data even reaches the actual LCD panel controller, DP reduces the data which reaches the display to a format which needs almost no processing before it can be used to drive the panel. With HDMI, DVI and VGA you need a lot of conversion, unpacking and scaling before the data is ready to be displayed. These hardware steps are now done in software and/or hardware accelerated on the GPU.
What I'd like is something more specific than the vague "conversion and unpacking". Scaling can already be done on-GPU with a DVI signal output; no need for DisplayPort there. And most of the other things that would save the display device from doing processing would require the GPU to have intimate knowledge of its inner workings.
I suppose dithering is one thing that's fairly generic, and something that DVI LCDs are required to do but DisplayPort direct-drive displays may offload to the GPU. It would require the display to communicate its gamma curve and DAC bit depth to the GPU, but that's an easily standardizable thing. I can't think of anything else though; things like pixel-walk inversion and overdriving start to be really intimate and LCD-specific.
It's quite possible that nobody knows this besides the engineers who've worked on it. Certainly nothing I've read about it so far has included any non-vague information.
I suppose dithering is one thing that's fairly generic, and something that DVI LCDs are required to do but DisplayPort direct-drive displays may offload to the GPU. It would require the display to communicate its gamma curve and DAC bit depth to the GPU, but that's an easily standardizable thing. I can't think of anything else though; things like pixel-walk inversion and overdriving start to be really intimate and LCD-specific.
It's quite possible that nobody knows this besides the engineers who've worked on it. Certainly nothing I've read about it so far has included any non-vague information.
One thing I need to point out is, even though displayport might have slightly better spec, but still doesn't mean it will takeover DVI for sure.
There are infinite number of newer technology that was better but did not replace the older one.
To make an example, Intel announce BTX standard to replace ATX like 8~9 years ago. It has better colling and lower noise. But motherboard manufactures do not want to participate to replace the design. In the user point of view, probably not much of difference. Until today, 99% of motherboards are still made as ATX standard.
Display port has higher bandwidth, but if user do not need that many, why would users wants to spend extra money on that? It's just like a small town wants to construct a 10 lanes wide freeway. Some one pointed out DVI currently has 2560x1600 resolution limit, but barely any LCD needs higher than that. Probably only those 30+ inches one, which less than 0.00001% of people own it.
There are infinite number of newer technology that was better but did not replace the older one.
To make an example, Intel announce BTX standard to replace ATX like 8~9 years ago. It has better colling and lower noise. But motherboard manufactures do not want to participate to replace the design. In the user point of view, probably not much of difference. Until today, 99% of motherboards are still made as ATX standard.
Display port has higher bandwidth, but if user do not need that many, why would users wants to spend extra money on that? It's just like a small town wants to construct a 10 lanes wide freeway. Some one pointed out DVI currently has 2560x1600 resolution limit, but barely any LCD needs higher than that. Probably only those 30+ inches one, which less than 0.00001% of people own it.
Get a copy of the DP spec and tell us about it, I'd say.
Bad example. BTX had worse thermal performance, worse layout (fails for multi-socket, fails for on-die MCU) and general worse characteristics than ATX. It didn't have any convincing features other than to serve for Intel as a desperate attempt to save face with their Netburst debacle. There is absolutely no surprise that it died in a blaze of anonymity.
Displayport surely doesn't have the bandwidth for dithering, right?
I thought dithering worked with updates in the order of thousands per second. That'd mean that displayport would require (very) roughly ten times the bandwidth it has today.
Bad example, BTX was a joke, and intel was the only one benefitting from it since intel were having serious problems with their CPUs (P4) at the time, when the switch was made to core duo not even intel had any use for BTX - no wonder noone adopted it...
I thought dithering worked with updates in the order of thousands per second. That'd mean that displayport would require (very) roughly ten times the bandwidth it has today.
Bad example, BTX was a joke, and intel was the only one benefitting from it since intel were having serious problems with their CPUs (P4) at the time, when the switch was made to core duo not even intel had any use for BTX - no wonder noone adopted it...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,315
honestly, I do not see DP becoming a standard. While VGA IS being phased out, HDMI and DVI are still the most mainstream connections on mobos, video cards, monitors and TV's.
I could be wrong though
I could be wrong though
The pic in the link given earlier makes it pretty clear that display manufacturers are gonna like DP.
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/images/smartcomputing/fullsize/01303631.jpg
Also, Displayport does both internal (laptop screens and the like) and external connections, so OEM builders and GPU manufacturers are going to like it as well. AMD has already built DP directly into its chips this generation.
Personally, I'd like to see DVI and VGA go away too, they're just clunky. My monitors are mostly DVI though...
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/images/smartcomputing/fullsize/01303631.jpg
Also, Displayport does both internal (laptop screens and the like) and external connections, so OEM builders and GPU manufacturers are going to like it as well. AMD has already built DP directly into its chips this generation.
Personally, I'd like to see DVI and VGA go away too, they're just clunky. My monitors are mostly DVI though...
IMO the technical capabilities of each connector are not at the top of the list determining their success.
The main downfall of DVI is the size of the connector. On desktops we don't care so much, but an entirely equivalent but smaller connector would be great. Laptops, iPods, iPhones, PSPs and other yet-to-be-released devices, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from a smaller connector.
This leaves HDMI vs. DP. Personally, I feel that DP would have a very hard time displacing HDMI in consumer electronics. HDMI got there first and is now a household word. DP is just "some other weird connector". The Average Joe would simply say "why the heck didn't they put an HDMI on this". HDMI will probably get any additional revisions to the standards to allow the bitrates required for more capable displays as it already has in the past (ie. .1 .2 .3).
In computing, I think DP has a decent shot. What it needs is support. If your GPU and display have DVI and DP, you'd probably use DP. All of the marketing photos of "upcoming" GPUs all seem to feature DP, and newer display designs are also incorporating DP. The biggest challenge is that convergence is attractive these days. If HDMI can do the job and is the consumer electronics standard, and works for 99% of computing needs, why not use it?
The main downfall of DVI is the size of the connector. On desktops we don't care so much, but an entirely equivalent but smaller connector would be great. Laptops, iPods, iPhones, PSPs and other yet-to-be-released devices, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from a smaller connector.
This leaves HDMI vs. DP. Personally, I feel that DP would have a very hard time displacing HDMI in consumer electronics. HDMI got there first and is now a household word. DP is just "some other weird connector". The Average Joe would simply say "why the heck didn't they put an HDMI on this". HDMI will probably get any additional revisions to the standards to allow the bitrates required for more capable displays as it already has in the past (ie. .1 .2 .3).
In computing, I think DP has a decent shot. What it needs is support. If your GPU and display have DVI and DP, you'd probably use DP. All of the marketing photos of "upcoming" GPUs all seem to feature DP, and newer display designs are also incorporating DP. The biggest challenge is that convergence is attractive these days. If HDMI can do the job and is the consumer electronics standard, and works for 99% of computing needs, why not use it?
Your statements about needing cables for different specs are not true. Certain cables are certified for certain specs yes, but in reality most HDMI cables will work with all the specs just fine. The more important thing is the gauge of the wire depending on how far you are running it.
I am sorry your roommate had trouble, but using quality cables I have never had any issues like that. The weak point is the connector in devices in HDMI because it is thin and fairly fragile at times, but DP is not much better really...it is a fact of life with a small connector like HDMI or DP.
I have a feeling DP will be getting the .X revisions soon enough as well from looking at the specs and ideas of what they can do "in the future".
Wait, so you're saying that there aren't HDMI cables with/without Ethernet wire? Did I just dream that all up?
Fine, there are some for select cases. You are talking about HDMI 1.4 which is not even what was being talked about or used. But for home theater setup I have yet to see any difference between cables that you can buy for .1/.2/.3. He was talking about HDCP issues and such which should be completely unrelated. Also as long as you get the latest certified cables they will be compatible with anything prior, not like you have to match things up or something crazy.
I am sure as DP gets more revisions it will be the same way.
If they went DP and stopped using HDMI I would not be a happy camper because using ATI HDMI connection to my receiver gives me sound and video and DP wouldn't so while you will get DP connection like my 5870 has I really don't see HDMI going anywhere soon. Next up from AMD/ATI is 3D stereoscopicvision for BluRay movies and that will need HDMI if you want to connect it to your HT receiver. Seems some of you are forgetting that it is not all about computing and the marriage of computers and HT is what many people want. If I can use an ATI video card to diplay BluRay movies in 3D on my plasma HDTV then count me in and couldn't care less about display port.
You heard lies. It was noisier. This was intel's attempt to cover up for their over heating processor roadmap.