4 ms·

Running lots of screens at high res requires bandwidth, and the usb-c connector only has 4 lanes. Displayport 2 is 80Gbps which is a lot of data per second...

by nikau 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago
Yeah, but if I plug in too many printers into my USB port, they still work, just might take a couple of seconds longer to print a page. Display stuff needs to gracefully degrade - and that probably means start sending compressed video. Remember even 10 Mbits is enough for HD video, and USBC can do 40Gbps - so there should be no issues with 4000 screens all playing video right? And make sure to use all the available bandwidth - so if I plug in 50 screens, but 49 of them are showing a static image, I should be able to have full performance on the remaining one.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > Remember even 10 Mbits is enough for HD video. To actually provide reasonable QoS, the "display" is then gonna need to present as a PCIe video accelerator endpoint. It implies that bare minimum every "display" is in fact, not "a display" but a media player that implements H.264/FFV1/VP9/AV1 (the most common "somewhat FOSS" codecs, I don't think whoever is penny-pinching the BOM of those "displays" will spend extra for decoder licenses). As we're that far, might as well add GPU and VRAM (a cheap phone SoC with all those components?) and support Vulkan...
- nikau 4y ago
  well they could do the same with your video if you dont mind frames being skipped. At the end of the day there are limits to how much data you can pump through a cable, and as seen with thunderbolt cables it gets expensive quick. 99.9% of users don't need more than 2 monitors, for those that do they can plug in a few more usb-c. using video compression sucks balls as anyone who has to use a displaylink monitor on some sucky office hub can attest.

4 ms·

Running lots of screens at high res requires bandwidth, and the usb-c connector only has 4 lanes. Displayport 2 is 80Gbps which is a lot of data per second...

by nikau 4y ago

Running lots of screens at high res requires bandwidth, and the usb-c connector only has 4 lanes. Displayport 2 is 80Gbps which is a lot of data per second...

londons_explore 4y ago
Yeah, but if I plug in too many printers into my USB port, they still work, just might take a couple of seconds longer to print a page. Display stuff needs to gracefully degrade - and that probably means start sending compressed video. Remember even 10 Mbits is enough for HD video, and USBC can do 40Gbps - so there should be no issues with 4000 screens all playing video right? And make sure to use all the available bandwidth - so if I plug in 50 screens, but 49 of them are showing a static image, I should be able to have full performance on the remaining one.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > Remember even 10 Mbits is enough for HD video. To actually provide reasonable QoS, the "display" is then gonna need to present as a PCIe video accelerator endpoint. It implies that bare minimum every "display" is in fact, not "a display" but a media player that implements H.264/FFV1/VP9/AV1 (the most common "somewhat FOSS" codecs, I don't think whoever is penny-pinching the BOM of those "displays" will spend extra for decoder licenses). As we're that far, might as well add GPU and VRAM (a cheap phone SoC with all those components?) and support Vulkan...
- nikau 4y ago
  well they could do the same with your video if you dont mind frames being skipped. At the end of the day there are limits to how much data you can pump through a cable, and as seen with thunderbolt cables it gets expensive quick. 99.9% of users don't need more than 2 monitors, for those that do they can plug in a few more usb-c. using video compression sucks balls as anyone who has to use a displaylink monitor on some sucky office hub can attest.