https://www.tomshardware.com/monito...opted-to-stick-with-dp14-on-the-rtx-40-series
TLDR;
DP 2.1 for the proper DP80 certification tops out at 1.2m ~4 feet.
TLDR;
DP 2.1 for the proper DP80 certification tops out at 1.2m ~4 feet.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The HUB video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS5CAb6s5j8
I imagine there is good reason for it, but still strange for a fully new standard with 0 possible legacy issue, that decide to call Display port 2.1 a range of signal that literally has 40gbs up too 80gbs in it.
With all the features in DP 2.1 being optional already, separating cables like that would make confusion worse. Look how hard it is for people to grasp the simple concept in HDMI with High Speed vs. Ultra High Speed.I imagine there other benefit to 2.1 vs 1.4a to use the same term (eArc for example), but still....how to make it complicated with a bunch of people connecting 80 gbs with 40 gbs cable and not understanding what is going on (or just one of the device accepting that speed)
Calling it 2.0, 2.1, 2.2..... for the 3 different bandwidth seem like would have been easier... that show that being a VESA type free to use affair instead of something trying to sell Royalty like HDMI is not necessarily magically always more clear for consumer.
I wonder if, like with PCIe4 and beyond, some kind of redriver would work.With all the features in DP 2.1 being optional already, separating cables like that would make confusion worse.
YOu send money to who if your device has a DP in or out port ?DisplayPort is royalty-free. That doesn't mean it's free to use.
Not sure to understand, if there would be optional feature if you call your cable an exact name, to be called 2.1 it need to have x-y-z, 2.2 all of 2.1 + something else, would it not be much clearer ?With all the features in DP 2.1 being optional already, separating cables like that would make confusion worse.
Component video cables come to mind. Always having to fix people who plugged them into audio portsIt's an issue with data transmission over copper. The higher the bandwidth, the greater the loss in signal integrity over distance. HDMI 2.1 has the same issue. I don't know why VESA and HDMI just don't switch over to optical for the masses, already. They're going to need to, eventually.
With all the features in DP 2.1 being optional already, separating cables like that would make confusion worse. Look how hard it is for people to grasp the simple concept in HDMI with High Speed vs. Ultra High Speed.
DisplayPort is royalty-free. That doesn't mean it's free to use.
Funny, I keep hearing the opposite - ditch the stock cables and get "high-quality" ones.All DP has a cable length problem. So far no matter what brand of DP cable I bought none worked at high res / refresh rate. The only cables that consistently work are the ones supplied with the monitors. That are coincidentally 1.2m.
They exist now, those cables are directional and the require an active power connector on the receiving side.It's an issue with data transmission over copper. The higher the bandwidth, the greater the loss in signal integrity over distance. HDMI 2.1 has the same issue. I don't know why VESA and HDMI just don't switch over to optical for the masses, already. They're going to need to, eventually.
Are they trying to sell you the Monster cables???Funny, I keep hearing the opposite - ditch the stock cables and get "high-quality" ones.
I have an HDMI optical cable and it doesn't require seperate power on either side. It does, however, seem to have current/voltage running through the connectors, which is a bit weird...They exist now, those cables are directional and the require an active power connector on the receiving side.
No, just people talking about how the stock monitor cable wouldn't do X resolution/refresh/whatever with any stability, but then they bought a "decent" cable and it worked.Are they trying to sell you the Monster cables???
You can get some which can be powered through the HDMIs 5v out on Pin 18, but depending on cable length, refresh rate, and blah blah blah 5v might not be enough. The ones I have are easily 25’ and longer and they all require power on the receiving end.I have an HDMI optical cable and it doesn't require seperate power on either side. It does, however, seem to have current/voltage running through the connectors, which is a bit weird...
Yeah I can see that, I had some flickering issues with the stock cables that came with my GSync monitor, bought a generic Amazon Basics brand one and it went away.No, just people talking about how the stock monitor cable wouldn't do X resolution/refresh/whatever with any stability, but then they bought a "decent" cable and it worked.
I know for HDMI it can make a difference, that's why they have certifications and stuff. And of course, the longer, the more iffy as to if it will do full bandwidth.
You need to be a VESA member to access the full specification, which has annual dues.YOu send money to who if your device has a DP in or out port ?
2.1 has a minimum technical specification. As long as manufacturers meet it they can call their device 2.1 compliant. The aforementioned bandwidth differences are part of the optional spec. UHBR40 (10 Gbps per lane) is the minimum for 2.1, in this case. DSC, audio, and Adaptive-Sync (as far as I know) are all examples of optional features.Not sure to understand, if there would be optional feature if you call your cable an exact name, to be called 2.1 it need to have x-y-z, 2.2 all of 2.1 + something else, would it not be much clearer ?
Or some feature or so orthogonal it does not work ?
Cost. While fiber has gotten a lot cheaper, it still costs a lot more than copper. Not so much the fiber itself (though it does cost more) but the transceivers. For a real basic price check, we can look at a Fiberstore 100gig QSFP module. That is 100gbits over 4 lanes of data, send and receive, and runs about $100. So call it roughly $50/end/port to implement fiber. Now this isn't going to directly translate since you'd also need a return signal, and also it would probably be cheaper putting it in a device rather than pluggable but it would easily raise the price to consumer by $40-50/port on a device. That's a lot. Gonna be a hard sell to vendors that they want to go with your fiber optic standard that is going to drasticaly increase device costs. It also won't be backwards compatible, so people would need adapters if they were hooking it to a non-fiber system.It's an issue with data transmission over copper. The higher the bandwidth, the greater the loss in signal integrity over distance. HDMI 2.1 has the same issue. I don't know why VESA and HDMI just don't switch over to optical for the masses, already. They're going to need to, eventually.
You can get some which can be powered through the HDMIs 5v out on Pin 18, but depending on cable length, refresh rate, and blah blah blah 5v might not be enough. The ones I have are easily 25’ and longer and they all require power on the receiving end.
And the 75’ one had to be done 3 times, they put it in backwards the first time, damaged it on the second, and got it right when they put in the new cable.
I’ve got the rapid run optical cables, they have more termination options so if I need to change them from HDMI to Display Port down the road I can. Just need to change out the plate connectors, can also upgrade HDMI versions if needed that way. It seemed like a slightly more future proof cabling option at the time because walls need to be opened if we replace them otherwise.This is what I got: FIBBR 8K Fiber Optic HDMI Cable 66ft, 48Gbps High-Speed HDMI 2.1 Cable - https://a.co/d/je9hpgI
Works fine getting 4K/120Hz to my OLED TV/AVR in the next room over from my gaming PC. 66ft was overkill for length, but whatever.
Cost. While fiber has gotten a lot cheaper, it still costs a lot more than copper. Not so much the fiber itself (though it does cost more) but the transceivers. For a real basic price check, we can look at a Fiberstore 100gig QSFP module. That is 100gbits over 4 lanes of data, send and receive, and runs about $100. So call it roughly $50/end/port to implement fiber. Now this isn't going to directly translate since you'd also need a return signal, and also it would probably be cheaper putting it in a device rather than pluggable but it would easily raise the price to consumer by $40-50/port on a device. That's a lot. Gonna be a hard sell to vendors that they want to go with your fiber optic standard that is going to drasticaly increase device costs. It also won't be backwards compatible, so people would need adapters if they were hooking it to a non-fiber system.
The other option is what we already have: Fiber optic cables, with transceivers on the end. Those are totally a thing, they work great, I use them at home and at work all the time. But, because of those transceivers, they cost more. Generally $100+/cable for higher bandwidth (HDMI 2.1) situations.
For DP80 Fibercommand makes such a thing. Goes from DP to MPO fiber. Can get up to probably about 150 meters over OM5. However, it's $200 for the adapters.
you would think they could make something similar to the optical digital cables we use for multi channel audio that wouldn't cost that muchCost. While fiber has gotten a lot cheaper, it still costs a lot more than copper. Not so much the fiber itself (though it does cost more) but the transceivers. For a real basic price check, we can look at a Fiberstore 100gig QSFP module. That is 100gbits over 4 lanes of data, send and receive, and runs about $100. So call it roughly $50/end/port to implement fiber. Now this isn't going to directly translate since you'd also need a return signal, and also it would probably be cheaper putting it in a device rather than pluggable but it would easily raise the price to consumer by $40-50/port on a device. That's a lot. Gonna be a hard sell to vendors that they want to go with your fiber optic standard that is going to drasticaly increase device costs. It also won't be backwards compatible, so people would need adapters if they were hooking it to a non-fiber system.
The other option is what we already have: Fiber optic cables, with transceivers on the end. Those are totally a thing, they work great, I use them at home and at work all the time. But, because of those transceivers, they cost more. Generally $100+/cable for higher bandwidth (HDMI 2.1) situations.
For DP80 Fibercommand makes such a thing. Goes from DP to MPO fiber. Can get up to probably about 150 meters over OM5. However, it's $200 for the adapters.
you would think they could make something similar to the optical digital cables we use for multi channel audio that wouldn't cost that much
Nah, those are garbage. As toast pointed out, they are way lower bandwidth, and they use LEDs. They are also POF (plastic) not actual glass fiber which means the cables are really lossy. You actually can get S/PDIF way farther over coax than TOSLINK because the POF cables are so lossy. You generally see only 96kHz supported over optical, and up to 192kHz over coax. The max bandwidth you get out of S/PDIF is about 8.7mbit/s (2 channels, 192kHz, 24-bits per sample). It doesn't actually natively support multichannel, that's all compressed, it is either Dolby Digital or DTS which then have to be uncompressed on the other end. In theory you could do 8 channels of 48kHz uncompressed, ADAT does that over the same fiber, though a bit different signaling, but that's as much as I've ever seen.you would think they could make something similar to the optical digital cables we use for multi channel audio that wouldn't cost that much
There are longer cables that claim DP80. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a redriver/retimer built in. I was a little surprised the prices weren't higher.I wonder if, like with PCIe4 and beyond, some kind of redriver would work.
I saw another article about this issue yesterday. OP mentions DP80, which refers to the full 80Gbps bandwidth. There's also DP54 and DP40, which are slower but allow longer cables. As long as the cable packaging lists the speed--and the manufacturers don't lie, of course--then teaching people to look for that should mostly obviate the problem. But yeah, it'd be nice if we didn't have to deal with this crap.
They also may just be lying. Lot of that shit goes on, has been since the HDMI 2.0 days. Plenty of cables that claimed they'd support something but were not certified, and when you got them it was a crapshoot if it worked.There are longer cables that claim DP80. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a redriver/retimer built in. I was a little surprised the prices weren't higher.
Nah, those are garbage. As toast pointed out, they are way lower bandwidth, and they use LEDs. They are also POF (plastic) not actual glass fiber which means the cables are really lossy. You actually can get S/PDIF way farther over coax than TOSLINK because the POF cables are so lossy. You generally see only 96kHz supported over optical, and up to 192kHz over coax. The max bandwidth you get out of S/PDIF is about 8.7mbit/s (2 channels, 192kHz, 24-bits per sample). It doesn't actually natively support multichannel, that's all compressed, it is either Dolby Digital or DTS which then have to be uncompressed on the other end. In theory you could do 8 channels of 48kHz uncompressed, ADAT does that over the same fiber, though a bit different signaling, but that's as much as I've ever seen.
For high bandwidth applications you need a glass fiber, which then has to be protected and reenforced so as not to be super breakable. You need to use lasers, VCSELs normally. Also, you usually need more than one data signal. We can actually do 100gbit over a single pair but its more expensive. In networking it takes 2x 50gbit electrical lanes and you combine them to drive a single 100gig optical transmitter. That works, but those optics are in the $300 each range as compared to $100 for the ones that do them over 4 lanes. Likewise, DP and HDMI themselves are 4-lane solutions. They use 4 different pairs for signaling, so it makes sense to keep that when you go to optical. Just convert each lane electrical to optical, rather than any additional processing.
There's also communication back to be considered. S/PDIF is one way only. No handshake, no data back. The video formats have channels going back from the TV to the source for things like EDID, copy protection, CEC, and eARC. So you need to implement that too. The all-in-one prefab cables you get from companies like FIBBR usually do that with copper cales. So they'll have the video data going over 4 optical fibers, and then the control data coming back over copper. The pure fiber optic ones like the Fibercommand have to put it over fiber as well, in their case they use two fibers: one for EDID/control/HDCP/etc and one for eARC.
With how little amount of things in the field able to push and receive 80gbs right now, you could get away with it for a while.They also may just be lying. Lot of that shit goes on, has been since the HDMI 2.0 days. Plenty of cables that claimed they'd support something but were not certified, and when you got them it was a crapshoot if it worked.
Because, again, the loss, the bandwidth. The higher the bandwidth, the more interference and loss matters. The details get pretty technical pretty fast but simplified time and frequency are reciprocals of each other and as you increase the speed at which you pulse a signal, it spreads out in the frequency domain and this has issues eith internal loss, reflection, and interference. To keep this from happening you need to have precisely controlled fiber sizes in relation to the frequency of your light source and that means glass fibers and laser sources.yeah that's why i was saying something similar to the optical digital audio. like maybe take 2 or 3 fibers or whatever they need, but actually i guess modern video would need a lot more bandwidth than audio. but that's what i'm saying, why not make a multi-fiber cable, if that's what needs to be done, and price it similar to what we can get audio cables for? yes i know they use plastic but that's the whole reason they can do that to begin with is because it's usually not going a long distance. the same cost savings that you see with the audio cables, should apply to video even if slightly higher price than audio. but not $200-300 or whatever you were saying.
Can you provide me a link to show me how that works? I ask because this is a topic I know more than a bit about and I've, literally, never encountered it. In the pro world yes, ADAT is 8 channels 48kHz uncompressed (or 4 at 96kHz, 2 at 192kHz) but I've never seen that in the consumer world. All consumer devices that I've seen that do multi-channel over S/PDIF use compression, either Dolby Digital or DTS.and optical digital / toslink has carried multichannel audio for quite a long time now and it's not lossy as long as it doesn't have to down-sample the audio for some reason. that's the biggest benefit of using a digital interface is to keep things lossless.
Yep, was the same shit in the early days of HDMI 2.0b. 99% of the people who bought those cables did it to futureproof, they were doing 1080p60 (or 1080p24) and it worked great. But that was only using 3.2gbps, not the 18 the cables claimed to be able to do. Even the few that did do 4k it was often 4k24 4:2:0 because it was all Blu-rays or the like, and so was less than like 8gbps.With how little amount of things in the field able to push and receive 80gbs right now, you could get away with it for a while.
Or even DP 2.1 almost none of them are 80gbs... you have some AMD pro line gpu that can do it I think, but is there monitor for the other side ?it'll work fine because they are using DP 1.4
Likely the case. Spent a little more time and still didn't find any actually certified DP80 longer than about 1M. I did find retimers that hopefully will make it possible...eventuallyThey also may just be lying. Lot of that shit goes on, has been since the HDMI 2.0 days. Plenty of cables that claimed they'd support something but were not certified, and when you got them it was a crapshoot if it worked.