SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
VESA Announces DisplayPort 2.0 Standard: Bandwidth For 8K Monitors & Beyond
While display interface standards are slow to move, at the same time their movement is inexorable: monitor resolutions continue to increase, as do refresh rates and color depths, requiring more and more bandwidth to carry signals for the next generation of monitors. Keeping pace with the demand for bandwidth, the DisplayPort standard, the cornerstone of PC display standards, has now been through several revisions since it was first launched over a decade ago. And now this morning the standard is taking its biggest leap yet with the release of the DisplayPort 2.0 specification. Set to offer nearly triple the available bandwidth of DisplayPort 1.4, the new revision of DisplayPort is almost moving a number of previously optional features into the core standard, creating what's in many ways a new baseline for the interface.
The big news here, of course, is raw bandwidth. The current versions of DisplayPort – 1.3 & 1.4 – offer up to 32.4 Gbps of bandwidth – or 25.9 Gbps after overhead – which is enough for a standard 16.7 million color (24-bit) monitor at up to 120Hz, or up to 98Hz for 1 billion+ (30-bit) monitors. This is a lot of bandwidth, but it still isn't enough for the coming generation of monitors, including the likes of Apple's new 6K Pro Display XDR monitor, and of course, 8K monitors. As a result, the need for more display interface bandwidth continues to grow, with these next-generation monitors set to be the tipping point. And all of this is something that the rival HDMI Forum has already prepared for with their own HDMI 2.1 standard.
DisplayPort 2.0, in turn, is shooting for 8K and above. Introducing not just one but a few different bitrate modes, the fastest mode in DisplayPort 2.0 will top out at 80 Gbps of raw bandwidth, about 2.5 times that of DisplayPort 1.3/1.4. Layered on that, DisplayPort 2.0 also introduces a more efficient coding scheme, resulting in much less coding overhead. As a result, the effective bandwidth of the new standard will peak at 77.4 Gbps, with at 2.98x the bandwidth of the previous standard is just a hair under a full trebling of available bandwidth.
Related: HDMI 2.1 Announced
Linux, Meet DisplayPort
HDMI 2.1 Released
VirtualLink Consortium Announces USB Type-C Specification for VR Headsets
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:00AM (2 children)
AnandTech article could have listed more resolution combos. Here's some more:
DisplayPort 2.0 has enough bandwidth for a 16K resolution display [pcgamer.com]
This fun site reckons 1080p @ 1000 Hz is possible, even without Display Stream Compression (DSC):
DisplayPort 2.0 Announced: Enough Bandwidth for 1000 Hz Future [blurbusters.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:56AM
I suspect it fattens both pipes, especially the one in the rear.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:30PM
More useful : multiple streams, so you can daisy chain monitors together without sacrificing resolution. This is useful for everyone for cable management, but especially for laptops and projectors where it's not practical to have too many connectors.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:45AM (5 children)
Wtf with the Apple resolution?
FFS. Dell Already have an 8k monitor available, for some time.
Does the $1k stand somehow make the Apple monitor better?
Btw. People keep taking as if it is a grading monitor, and yet it is not.. The calibrations are not right, and it doesn't even come with a calibration tool... Just a ton of marketing hype and a huge price tag.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 27 2019, @03:11AM (4 children)
It could be argued that 8K displays (and TVs) were premature for most users because they required two cables to work, must use DSC, etc. Now with HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0, it's the time for 8K.
Refer to complaints in the last year about 8K TVs launching without HDMI 2.1 support.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 27 2019, @08:08AM
Early-adopter stuff is always, for most users, overpriced and inconvenient.
Monitor . connectivity . Pixel generator . Content : First adopters get bit by at least 2 of the 4.
As someone with a 4K monitor on my desk (40"), I can certify that 8K is useless under 60" if you're 3 feet away, and pretty much useless for anyone with a normal wall and living room. Given the constraints, and the quality of 4K, it may take a really, really long time to see double-digit percentage of adoption. The guys pushing this had better not bet the farm on people's gullibility (though I can't blame them for following history)
ironic : those 8K monitors will have enough horizontal pixels to make glassless 3-D much easier ... now that the 3-D fad is essentially dead.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:27PM (2 children)
The problem with HDMI 2.1 is that it's basically DisplayPort. Except it has to be backward compatible with earlier versions of HDMI. The protocols are pretty different and it's just not easy to make HDMI 2.1 receivers. They'll probably always be more expensive than DisplayPort.
It might be that DisplayPort will start getting traction in the consumer market. That would be better for everyone. I wouldn't put money on it, but it would be nice.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 27 2019, @05:12PM (1 child)
The reason DisplayPort hasn't gained a whole lot of traction is, because my TVs / Monitors don't have it. I.E. just like 90%+ of the general population. You're just now getting everyone switched over to HDMI, now you want them to switch again, to DP?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by toddestan on Friday June 28 2019, @03:31AM
Generally you'll find at least one Displayport (and often more) on high end computers, graphics cards, and monitors. HDMI seems to rule the consumer-level stuff, where 1080P seems to be good enough.
It's kind of too bad DisplayPort is non-existent on most TVs, but similar thing happened in the early-mid 2000's when TV's all came with the obsolete VGA port, and almost no TV's had a DVI connector.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday June 27 2019, @04:05AM (1 child)
source
So: 8K, 12K, more... Just because you can?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:36PM
My sources say that 16K [soylentnews.org] (in the display and field of view) at 1000 Hz (or more) [blurbusters.com] is desireable for VR, where you're looking at a very close up screen through lenses. And you could easily see a graphics professional wanting 8K, or 10-12K to display an 8K image with stuff around it.
The debate is not settled by a stackoverflow poster. The case has been made for much higher resolutions, and you might want to reach the "resolution of the eye" at a certain distance and then make an increase over that.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html [clarkvision.com]
Does this mean that everyone needs to run out and buy an 8K monitor? No. I've been just fine with 720p video most of the time. But DisplayPort 2.0 allows you to run triple-4K setups at high framerates and greater color depths with no compression. IIRC, someone around here is using a setup with 6 monitors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]