Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

DisplayPort 2.0 Labels Specify Bandwidth To Avoid HDMI 2.1-Like Confusion (arstechnica.com) 40

Posted by BeauHD from the certified-legit dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: VESA, which makes the DisplayPort spec, today announced a certification program aimed at helping consumers understand if a DisplayPort 2.0 cable, monitor, or video source can support the max refresh rates and resolutions the spec claims. VESA's latest certification is around DisplayPort 2.0. The spec can support a max throughput of 80Gbps compared to DisplayPort 1.4's 32.4Gbps. This enables extreme uses, like 16K resolution with display stream compression (DSC), 10K without compression, or two 8K HDR screens at 120 Hz. But just because a monitor or cable, for example, is DisplayPort 2.0-certified doesn't mean that's the performance you'll get.

The Ultra-high Bit Rate (UHBR) Certification is what you'll have to check for if you want to be certain about these figures. VESA's new "DP80 UHBR" certification means the display, cable, or video source supports up to a 20Gbps link rate (what VESA calls UHBR20) and a throughput of up to 80Gbps via four lanes. Meanwhile, "DP40 UHBR" certification calls for support for a 10Gbps link rate (UHBR10) and a maximum throughput of 40Gbps via four-lane operation. Of course, it's possible that some products will still claim such performance without going through VESA's certification process, but UHBR certifications seem to be the only way to know for sure if the DisplayPort 2.0 product will give you that impressive bandwidth.

There should eventually be UHBR-certified monitors and video sources, but today's announcement is only accompanied by UHBR-certified cables. According to VESA, there are now DisplayPort and Mini DisplayPort DP40 and DP80 cables from companies including Accell, Bizlink, and WIZEN. The cables are also backward-compatible with other DisplayPort link rates, such as HBR 3 and 2. [...] In terms of DisplayPort over Alt Mode, VESA noted that "full-feature passive USB-C cables already support UHBR bit rate speeds." It added that UHBR-certified USB Type-C-to-DisplayPort converter cables will be available "soon." VESA also said that "multiple video source and display products" it's currently testing should be DisplayPort UHBR-certified "soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DisplayPort 2.0 Labels Specify Bandwidth To Avoid HDMI 2.1-Like Confusion More

DisplayPort 2.0 Labels Specify Bandwidth To Avoid HDMI 2.1-Like Confusion

Comments Filter:
  • You can't measure high fidelity sound I get from my gold-plated HDMI cables with your crude bandwidth metrics! My bits come across much more clearer!

    • Yes, your bits do come across more clearly with gold plated HDMI. Thank you for the demonstration. Now, can you please put your pants back on?

    • Display port physically incompattible with HDMI ? Why ?
      USB-C with thunderbolt physically incompatible with those two.
      Mini HDMI, Micrro-HDMI, Mini Display port... etc...

      How many incompatible standards must we suffer before this gets settled out to ONE single connector format ????
      it's a #*6kng screen.
      It does not need 8 different connector standards.

    • gold-plated HDMI cables

      gold plating is a decades-old, effective, low cost anti-corrosive measure.
      why do old NES games often fail to boot? because they have copper contacts, which corrode.

      fun fact: a "1" may enter your HDMI cable, but it can leave a "0", due to the cable.

      disclaimer: i am not endorsing expensive HDMI cables.

  • Thunderbolt 3 cables tend to look alike. Might be a 10, 20, or 40 gbps cable. And there's no way to tell visually. One cable just works faster than another, for no obvious reason.

    I have mine marked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

      Thunderbolt 3 cables tend to look alike.

      I'd imagine they also look like USB-C cables (other than maybe having a Thunderbolt icon on them), which bring more bandwidth options all the way down to 480 Mbps. I keep a second monitor with my notebook, along with some cables. I have some USB-C cables that support USB 3.0+ speeds, and some other USB-C cables that only support USB 2.0 speeds. The former will work to send both power and signal from my computer to my monitor, while the latter will only send power.

    • I thought USB-C cables, Thunderbolt or not, already had marking standards to indicate speed. A USB-C cable with the "SS 5" marking for USB 3.x 5 Gbps was tested to USB at 5 Gbps and so will meet the standard for Thunderbolt at 10 Gbps, because Thunderbolt uses all four "super speed" data lines on the USB-C cables where USB 3.x uses only two. Similarly the "SS 10" marking means it supports 20 Gbps Thunderbolt. The "SS 20" and "SS 40" markings are different, because these markings are for USB4, which is ju

  • Excellent way of understanding and addressing end-user confusion. It shows the DP folks are well aware of how the market (and marketing departments) work.

  • ... we see the third generation of _decreasing_ bandwidth populating the market. HDMI 2.1 started with some devices that could actually transfer 48GBit/s in 2019. Then came the cost cuts to 40GBit/s in 2020. And now, 2022, all the new "HDMI 2.1" monitors coming to the market max out at 24GBit/s, essentially allowing all their higher resolutions/frame-rates to be transferred only using some lossy compression on the wire. HDMI has become such an embarrassment!

    And year after year, the HDMI cables are restric

    • HDMI was always destined to lose simply because it was always based on essentially DVI level clocked signals where they just kept bumping the clockspeed until they apparently now have hit a wall in terms of what they can pack in. Displayport was actually intended to be somewhat futureproof since it is packeted and was designed to be expanded from the get go.

      Outside of just pure industry inertia which has led to so many more products, there are zero technical advantages to HDMI over DP. DP does everything

      • HDMI is cheaper - both for cables and implementation. We're putting up with all of this just because HDMI is slightly cheaper.

        Well...also, the DisplayPort people don't really know all that much about legacy broadcast video and never bothered to get the broadcast/film industry on board and meet their needs.

        • True but I gotta chalk that up to just market share. Every TV on earth ships with HDMI there just so much more product out there. I know the controller chips used to more expensive for DP but I don't imagine that's the case and as far as I know HDMI still has a license fee, even small.

          True on broadcast, I suppose that's due to the wide usage on consumer displays that it makes sense but even then I imagine both backseat to SDI

        • "their needs" = DRM? I'm glad they didn't bother then.

      • HDMI was always destined to lose simply because it was always based on essentially DVI level clocked signals where they just kept bumping the clockspeed until they apparently now have hit a wall in terms of what they can pack in.

        This info is a bit out of date.

        Despite the relatively small increase in version numbers, HDMI 2.1 actually institutes a major change in the physical and link layers. The Ultra speed grades (24/32/40/48Gbps) are all transported with a new packet-based fixed rate link, as opposed to T

        • Interesting, thank you for the correction.

          Unfortunately that sure sounds like we are going to have these two overlapping standards for no real reason. I know my dream of an all Displayport world was dashed years ago but it still would have been better for everyone.

  • I won't throw out hardware that can still work for years to come just to get an incremental improvement. There's a goddamn chip shortage! People can't even buy graphics cards, but your cable standards come with decimal places. Take your time. You don't have to make a new standard as often as Windows gets an update. I buy the cheapest HDMI cables I find, because I can't be bothered to find out what the differences are. Is there really Ethernet in some HDMI cables and not in others, and do devices actually us

    • Is there really Ethernet in some HDMI cables and not in others

      The problem is just like DisplayPorts, HDMI has de-coupled the standards from the speeds. HDMI only has 4 speeds:
      Standard (4.95 Gbps)
      High Speed (10.2 Gbps)
      Premium High Speed (18 Gbps)
      Ultra High Speed (48 Gbps)

      The actual standard that will travel over the cable depends on the devices on either end and the bandwidth needed. HDMI 2.1 at 720p can travel on the cheapest of these. 10-Bit HDR 1080p can travel over the second cheapest of these.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      Apparently some HDMI cables don't work with HDCP. I recently bought an HDMI switch (labelled HDCP compliant) because I have 3 inputs and only 2 ports on my TV, and I now get complaints about HDCP, when I don't with devices connected directly.

    • Like VGA, DVI, PS/2, 3.5mm analog audio, etc. They all still work fine for me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      I won't throw out hardware that can still work for years to come just to get an incremental improvement.

      No one is asking you to. But your inhabitations in your upgrade path shouldn't affect the rest of the world.

      Take your time. You don't have to make a new standard as often as Windows gets an update.

      Not ever update needs to be a quantum technology leap that blows your mind. This doesn't affect you in the slightest, why bitch? There's so much wrong in the world today and your decide complaining that DP gets an update on an internet forum is good use of your time? Like you seriously have nothing better to do than to walk into a room and shout "I don't care!" at no one in particular?

      What went wrong

      • Your comment is like someone watching cat videos and finding it amusing how easily amused they are.

        Uselessly small updates to standards do affect me, because making perfectly fine hardware obsolete by incrementing a number creates waste and scarcity. Like I wrote, there is a chip shortage, but apparently keeping people on a ridiculously fast and accelerating update treadmill is nothing to complain about. It's annoying when it's done with software. It's a crime against nature when hardware manufacturers do i

        • Except that nobody is making perfectly fine hardware obsolete. As a general rule the new stuff will work *just fine* with the older stuff. Backwards compatibility is a huge driving force in virtually all standards.

          Which is why you can take your well-loved ancient USB 1.0 mouse and plug it into a modern USB 3 (non-C) port on your computer and have it work just fine. Or plug your new 16K home InsanityDisk player into your ancient 720p, HDMI 1.0 TV and (usually) have it just work.

          Now, obviously you won't ge

          • Can we agree that lots of hardware is thrown out long before it ceases to be perfectly useful? Just because I don't toss devices to upgrade from 23.0 to 23.1 doesn't mean that others don't fall for the marketing. And it's not just the consumers who abandon working devices: My phone is barely two years old, but by now five more generations of basically the same phone have come to market, and none of them are kept up-to-date software-wise. Producing hardware should be a commitment to supporting it at least fo

            • Yes and? Can you admit that this is not 23.0 to 23.1? This is a large advance of DSP capabilities. It is also not "marketing". This is a standards body doing real work in advancing the specifications before they are needed. Also you do know that DSP 2.0 is backwards compatible with existing DSP? You do not have to stop using existing cables and equipment.

            • Can we agree that lots of hardware is thrown out long before it ceases to be perfectly useful?

              Of course. Naturally none of this has anything do with the topic at hand. People who need the upgrade will take the upgrade, people who don't won't. Proposing to halt development of standards simply because of supply issues is among the dumbest fucking things ever put to paper.

              Here's a thought for you brainiac: My monitor dies today. There's a chip shortage going on. Do I buy a new monitor that is better than what I had? Or do I follow your dumbfuckery and buy an old monitor basically guaranteeing obsolesce

        • Uselessly small updates to standards do affect me, because making perfectly fine hardware obsolete

          No they don't. That's what backwards compatibility is for. Also the update is only useless to you because you run old hardware. In the mean time the extra bandwidth is actually required for some emerging applications.

          You said it yourself, it's incremental meaning no one is going to drop their stuff in the bin and run out and buy buy buy. So your entire complain about e-waste and chip scarcity is just stupid on the face of it. You completely punked yourself, so desperate to argue about nothing that you only

    • I won't throw out hardware that can still work for years to come just to get an incremental improvement.

      Who says you need to throw out hardware? The devices that will need DisplayPort 2.0 do not exist yet. I am unaware of 16K displays right now.

      You don't have to make a new standard as often as Windows gets an update

      DisplayPort 1.2: January 2010
      DisplayPort 1.4: March 2016
      DisplayPort 2.0: June 2019

      I buy the cheapest HDMI cables I find, because I can't be bothered to find out what the differences are.

      And that is your choice. But if you have a terrible experience, that is on you. You don't have to buy $100 Monster HDMI cables but $5 ones may not correctly handle a 4K signal with Dolby Atmos.

  • I recall some discussion about the limits of USB-C when Thunderbolt 4 came out. One reason given why the new TB spec didn't support higher data rates is because USB-C didn't support higher data rates. What changed with TB 4 was mostly about requiring what was optional with TB 3 so there is something to be gained with looking for products that meet the TB 4 spec, the gains just are not speed.

    With the move from TB 2 to TB 3 there was a move from mini-DP to USB-C. One reason for that was avoiding the need t

  • Maybe I am the minority, but for gods' sake just do one damn standard at the maximum rate for cables! I have so many junk cables now that are off-spec and only suitable for one device that it makes me nuts. Cables should be "forever" even if equipment isn't. I know they won't last that long, but troubleshooting crap because of incompatible cables is just wasted energy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Close