11 ms·

What really blew me away is that they went straight for Displayport 1.4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

What really blew me away is that they went straight for Displayport 1.4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4) that was only announced on 1st of March 2016. DP 1.3 was approved on 15th of September 2014 and as of today there are no cards supporting it except this one (with backwards compatibility). The bad news is that there's no news about new gen displays that could take advantage of this graphic card. I'm talking about 4K 120Hz HDR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_rendering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_rendering) displays. This is a total WTF - we have a graphic card with DP 1.4 and we don't even have a single display with so much as DP 1.3...

memonkey 10y ago
What cable transfers 4k 120-144hz? What are the benefits of DisplayPort 1.4 over something like Dual Link DVI or the newest HDMI?
- neverminder 10y ago
  Displayport 1.4 is a standard for socket and cable, so it will transfer 4K 120Hz. Advantages over other standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DVI.2C_VGA_and_FPD-Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DV... Also, another major advantage - USB Type-C compatibility (http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/ http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/)
  - bawana 10y ago
    Why didn't video cables go optical? Like toslink did w audio?
    - tormeh 10y ago
      Latency and cost, probably.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        What latency?
        brianwawok 10y ago
        Electric to light to electric would add latency perhaps? Random guess
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        It wouldn't, not at the scale of inter-device cables.
    - nl 10y ago
      No advantage. It's still all wires inside the computer and the monitor.
      - chillydawg 10y ago
        Yes, but inside the computer you have the luxury of static, pre-calculated track layouts that optimise for latency, noise and general integrity. A general purpose, variable length, high bandwidth cable and connectors is a much harder problem, thus the kind of issues we see here sending raw video signals of extremely high fidelity between card and monitor.
    - stevep98 10y ago
      Thunderbolt was supposed to go optical. You can read about it here, under "Copper vs. optical": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        USB3 was also supposed to have fiber components. Really hard to find references for this online since at CES 2008 they showed the connectors without any optical stuff, but I found this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/ Anyone know why they didn't end up going optical + copper for USB3?
    - Matthias247 10y ago
      There are lots of options for optical cabling (e.g. cheap plastic fibers vs. glass fibers) and all have different tradeoffs, e.g. available bandwidth vs. cost. However from what I've seen basically all options are more expensive then equivalent electrical connections (we use both optical and electrical networks in cars). A major advantage of optical is that there are no EMV problems and that you are electrically decoupled (e.g. no hum loops). This might be one of the reasons why toslink is optical. For displays ground loops are typically no problem compared to amplifiers/speakers.
- Ductapemaster 10y ago
  I don't have access to the spec for 1.4, but from what I can understand it's still a single cable that will do 4K 120hz HDR. Obviously it'll have to be a supported 1.4 capable cable, but that's the same as CAT 5 vs CAT 6 Dual link DVI is significantly old-hat compared to the newer DisplayPort and HDMI standards. A single dual link DVI cable can carry either half a 4K frame (1920x2160) at 8 bits per color, 60hz, OR a single 1080p frame at 10 bits per color, 60hz. To get a 4K 60hz display running you need to use two dual link DVI cables, which is insanely bulky. Plus you at best get 8 bit color out of it, and no audio. The latest HDMI standard can do 4096x2160 60Hz in deep color (12 bits per color). DisplayPort 1.4 has a higher maximum bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 (31.4 Gbps vs 18Gbps). This allows it to do 120Hz, deep color/HDR or carry multiple 4K streams (multiple monitors or 3D) on one cable. It's by far the most advanced standard out there for consumer video transmission. Source: I'm an engineer working with video systems, and Wikipedia
- the8472 10y ago
  I wouldn't call it an advantage, but DP1.4 can cheat on the bandwidth department by using lossy compression. Their press statements it's visually transparent, but the technical overview[1] says this: > All of the analyses showed that the DSC algorithm outperformed five other proprietary algorithms on these picture quality tests, and was either visually lossless or very nearly so for all tested images at 8 bits/pixel. [1] http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP2...
  - untog 10y ago
    Ugh, I can see this getting very annoying - having to work out whether something is "true" DisplayPort 1.4.
raverbashing 10y ago
Well, chicken and egg problem It would also be useless to have the displays first and cards later I guess some manufacturers have it lined up already
- neverminder 10y ago
  Well, that's understandable, however comments like this are really discouraging: "Proper HDR support for monitors is years away. Some budget trash with HDR will be released, but they won't come close to matching the HDR standard and will have tons of issues." (https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/4hj4xv/what_are_some_upcoming_hdr_monitors/d2q9ha6 https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/4hj4xv/what_are_s...)
  - CyberDildonics 10y ago
    There are monitors with 10 bit color depth, what exactly are you hoping to get beyond that?
    - neverminder 10y ago
      10 bit is not the same as HDR and vice versa - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3822463 http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3822463
      - zokier 10y ago
        I think this article (from 2005!) is still quite good introduction to HDR: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_e... Your link is now bit outdated in the regard that these days there are plenty of consumer HDR standards/names out there. HDR10 and Dolby Vision are the two main competing standards, and we have marketing terms like "Ultra HD Premium" or "HDR Compatible". https://www.cta.tech/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2015-Press-Releases/CEA-Defines-%E2%80%98HDR-Compatible%E2%80%99-Displays.aspx https://www.cta.tech/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2015-... http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra-hd-premium-what-are-specs-which-tvs-support-it http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra-hd-premium-what-are-spe... I think NCX is being bit overly negative (in his characteristic style) in his predictions. Sure, there will be cheap crap released, but considering that almost all major manufacturers are pushing this tech heavily on TV screens it can't be that long until it trickles down to monitors too. Of course you can plug your PC right now to one of those fancy new HDR TVs, I'm not sure though if you can get HDR actually working. I guess that would be mostly a software issue?
potatolicious 10y ago
IMO still a preferable situation than what we had before - which was displays coming out with hacked up interfaces because they needed more bandwidth than there were video cards capable of driving it. Displays get to play catchup for a while. This is great - it means we can avoid stupid hacks like MST.
tetraodonpuffer 10y ago
I think it's actually a smart choice, as as much as I doubt there will be monitors with that spec, there will for sure be VR headsets that will be able to use it, and likely not that far in the future
shurcooL 10y ago
How come Thunderbolt 3 still supports only DisplayPort 1.2? Which is the same as what Thunderbolt 2 supported.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  It likely has to do with the timing at which the standards were finalized. DP1.3 / DP1.4 probably weren't ready when they needed to finalize TB3. Unfortunate but alas, standards.
elevensies 10y ago
This screen is supposed to do 4K 120hz, I haven't seen I hands-on review yet though. http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/dell-up3017q-30-inch-4k-120hz-oled-monitor/ http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/dell-up3017q-30-inch-4...
jp555 10y ago
Won't something like a Thunderbolt 3 over usb-c be required for a 120Hz HDR 4K vid stream?
- neverminder 10y ago
  DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680×4320) at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR, or 4K UHD (3840×2160) at 120 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR. 4K at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR can be achieved without the need for DSC. On displays which do not support DSC, the maximum limits are unchanged from DisplayPort 1.3 (4K 120 Hz, 5K 60 Hz, 8K 30 Hz). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4

memonkey 10y ago

What cable transfers 4k 120-144hz? What are the benefits of DisplayPort 1.4 over something like Dual Link DVI or the newest HDMI?

neverminder 10y ago
Displayport 1.4 is a standard for socket and cable, so it will transfer 4K 120Hz. Advantages over other standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DVI.2C_VGA_and_FPD-Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Advantages_over_DV... Also, another major advantage - USB Type-C compatibility (http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/ http://www.displayport.org/what-is-displayport-over-usb-c/)
- bawana 10y ago
  Why didn't video cables go optical? Like toslink did w audio?
  - tormeh 10y ago
    Latency and cost, probably.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      What latency?
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        Electric to light to electric would add latency perhaps? Random guess
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        It wouldn't, not at the scale of inter-device cables.
  - nl 10y ago
    No advantage. It's still all wires inside the computer and the monitor.
    - chillydawg 10y ago
      Yes, but inside the computer you have the luxury of static, pre-calculated track layouts that optimise for latency, noise and general integrity. A general purpose, variable length, high bandwidth cable and connectors is a much harder problem, thus the kind of issues we see here sending raw video signals of extremely high fidelity between card and monitor.
  - stevep98 10y ago
    Thunderbolt was supposed to go optical. You can read about it here, under "Copper vs. optical": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      USB3 was also supposed to have fiber components. Really hard to find references for this online since at CES 2008 they showed the connectors without any optical stuff, but I found this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/19/idf_usb_3_announced/ Anyone know why they didn't end up going optical + copper for USB3?
  - Matthias247 10y ago
    There are lots of options for optical cabling (e.g. cheap plastic fibers vs. glass fibers) and all have different tradeoffs, e.g. available bandwidth vs. cost. However from what I've seen basically all options are more expensive then equivalent electrical connections (we use both optical and electrical networks in cars). A major advantage of optical is that there are no EMV problems and that you are electrically decoupled (e.g. no hum loops). This might be one of the reasons why toslink is optical. For displays ground loops are typically no problem compared to amplifiers/speakers.
Ductapemaster 10y ago
I don't have access to the spec for 1.4, but from what I can understand it's still a single cable that will do 4K 120hz HDR. Obviously it'll have to be a supported 1.4 capable cable, but that's the same as CAT 5 vs CAT 6 Dual link DVI is significantly old-hat compared to the newer DisplayPort and HDMI standards. A single dual link DVI cable can carry either half a 4K frame (1920x2160) at 8 bits per color, 60hz, OR a single 1080p frame at 10 bits per color, 60hz. To get a 4K 60hz display running you need to use two dual link DVI cables, which is insanely bulky. Plus you at best get 8 bit color out of it, and no audio. The latest HDMI standard can do 4096x2160 60Hz in deep color (12 bits per color). DisplayPort 1.4 has a higher maximum bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 (31.4 Gbps vs 18Gbps). This allows it to do 120Hz, deep color/HDR or carry multiple 4K streams (multiple monitors or 3D) on one cable. It's by far the most advanced standard out there for consumer video transmission. Source: I'm an engineer working with video systems, and Wikipedia
the8472 10y ago
I wouldn't call it an advantage, but DP1.4 can cheat on the bandwidth department by using lossy compression. Their press statements it's visually transparent, but the technical overview[1] says this: > All of the analyses showed that the DSC algorithm outperformed five other proprietary algorithms on these picture quality tests, and was either visually lossless or very nearly so for all tested images at 8 bits/pixel. [1] http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf http://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP2...
- untog 10y ago
  Ugh, I can see this getting very annoying - having to work out whether something is "true" DisplayPort 1.4.

raverbashing 10y ago

Well, chicken and egg problem It would also be useless to have the displays first and cards later I guess some manufacturers have it lined up already

neverminder 10y ago
Well, that's understandable, however comments like this are really discouraging: "Proper HDR support for monitors is years away. Some budget trash with HDR will be released, but they won't come close to matching the HDR standard and will have tons of issues." (https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/4hj4xv/what_are_some_upcoming_hdr_monitors/d2q9ha6 https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/4hj4xv/what_are_s...)
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  There are monitors with 10 bit color depth, what exactly are you hoping to get beyond that?
  - neverminder 10y ago
    10 bit is not the same as HDR and vice versa - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3822463 http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3822463
    - zokier 10y ago
      I think this article (from 2005!) is still quite good introduction to HDR: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_e... Your link is now bit outdated in the regard that these days there are plenty of consumer HDR standards/names out there. HDR10 and Dolby Vision are the two main competing standards, and we have marketing terms like "Ultra HD Premium" or "HDR Compatible". https://www.cta.tech/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2015-Press-Releases/CEA-Defines-%E2%80%98HDR-Compatible%E2%80%99-Displays.aspx https://www.cta.tech/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2015-... http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra-hd-premium-what-are-specs-which-tvs-support-it http://www.whathifi.com/advice/ultra-hd-premium-what-are-spe... I think NCX is being bit overly negative (in his characteristic style) in his predictions. Sure, there will be cheap crap released, but considering that almost all major manufacturers are pushing this tech heavily on TV screens it can't be that long until it trickles down to monitors too. Of course you can plug your PC right now to one of those fancy new HDR TVs, I'm not sure though if you can get HDR actually working. I guess that would be mostly a software issue?

potatolicious 10y ago

IMO still a preferable situation than what we had before - which was displays coming out with hacked up interfaces because they needed more bandwidth than there were video cards capable of driving it. Displays get to play catchup for a while. This is great - it means we can avoid stupid hacks like MST.

tetraodonpuffer 10y ago

I think it's actually a smart choice, as as much as I doubt there will be monitors with that spec, there will for sure be VR headsets that will be able to use it, and likely not that far in the future

shurcooL 10y ago

How come Thunderbolt 3 still supports only DisplayPort 1.2? Which is the same as what Thunderbolt 2 supported.

seanp2k2 10y ago
It likely has to do with the timing at which the standards were finalized. DP1.3 / DP1.4 probably weren't ready when they needed to finalize TB3. Unfortunate but alas, standards.

elevensies 10y ago

This screen is supposed to do 4K 120hz, I haven't seen I hands-on review yet though. http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/dell-up3017q-30-inch-4k-120hz-oled-monitor/ http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/dell-up3017q-30-inch-4...

jp555 10y ago

Won't something like a Thunderbolt 3 over usb-c be required for a 120Hz HDR 4K vid stream?

neverminder 10y ago
DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680×4320) at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR, or 4K UHD (3840×2160) at 120 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR. 4K at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR can be achieved without the need for DSC. On displays which do not support DSC, the maximum limits are unchanged from DisplayPort 1.3 (4K 120 Hz, 5K 60 Hz, 8K 30 Hz). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4