9 ms·
Assuming the signal is transmitted uncompressed, this would be 5120x2880x32 bits per frame, so 5120x2880x32x60 bits per seconds at 60fps. That's 28GBit/s - mor
by pilif 12y ago
Assuming the signal is transmitted uncompressed, this would be 5120x2880x32 bits per frame, so 5120x2880x32x60 bits per seconds at 60fps.
That's 28GBit/s - more than what a single TB2 port can handle and probably also more than what a lower-to-mid range GPU is able to produce.
I hope the solution to this will neither be reducing FPS nor adding compression, so it looks like we need a new display connection standard.
Please tell me that I got my math wrong as I really, really, really want a display at this resolution for my day-to-day work.
- jychang 12y agoA lot of 4K screens aren't at 60fps, they're at 48fps. I wouldn't be surprised if this screen is lower than 60fps.
- nwh 12y agoI looked at 4K TVs recently, and if you look through the advertising they're all 4K at 30hz (ie, totally worthless for viewing anything on) due to the limitations of HDMI 1.4.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago4K at 60hz (ie, totally worthless for viewing anything on) What's wrong with that? Sounds lovely!
- baddox 12y ago30 Hz is bad for most PC content, but it should be fine for movies, which are mostly shot and distributed at 24 frames per second.
- Cthulhu_ 12y agoMostly, yes, but the trend (set by the Hobbit movies) is heading towards higher frame rates (60 and beyond). I can imagine the connectors and graphics cards are racing to get that kind of performance at those resolutions again.
- paul_f 12y agoThis is not true. The Hobbit demonstration showed why 24fps is superior for Hollywood storytelling and movies will likely stay that way, possibly for decades.
- pkroll 12y agoSome reviewers seem to have that opinion, but many, many people use the high-frame-rate-simulators on their home TVs. I've seen the first two Hobbit movies in 48 fps and wish everything was there or higher. Hell, there are projects like SVP [1] to get video smoothed on your computer. People LIKE higher frame rates. [1] http://www.svp-team.com/ http://www.svp-team.com/
- timdiggerm 12y agoMany people have the high-frame-rate turned on by default and don't know it. That's not the same as preferring the look.
- baddox 12y agoThe Hobbit demonstrated that people have different opinions and react differently to change. I saw The Hobbit in both formats, and I thought that the 60 FPS presentation was vastly superior to the 24 FPS.
- 12y ago
- dmm 12y agoI work all day on a 30Hz 4k tv. It works for viewing lots of text buffers.
- Aissen 12y agoFor most 2014 TVs, it's not a limitation on the TV because they also support HDMI 2.0, but a limitation on the source. What I don't understand is why these TVs don't have a DP input so we can use them at 60fps with modern PCs (and already on the market GPUs).
- aroch 12y ago>What I don't understand is why these TVs don't have a DP input so we can use them at 60fps with modern PCs (and already on the market GPUs). Probably because every TV maker / rebrander and their mother has both an HDMI license and the tooling setup. There's, basically, 0 cost to keep usin gHDMI. Moving to DP needs licensing and retooling.
- hereonbusiness 12y agoAs far as I know using DP does not require a license except for using the DP logo.
- jp555 12y agoDo you consider theatre movies at 24hz "worthless"? Or is there some other difference?
- mikeash 12y agoOne thing that comes to mind is that unless you can pull them down to 24Hz, it will really suck to watch a 24Hz movie on a 30Hz TV.
- chadgeidel 12y agoMovies rely on persistence of vision (or motion blur) to pull off the 24 FPS. I don't want motion blur in anything I use a computer for aside from games - and only then if implemented properly. I haven't seen a good implementation of that yet.
- brave-new 12y agoTheater movies are 72Hz. They just project every frame 3 times
- davidw 12y ago30hz is just fine for a lot of big Emacs windows and terminals!
- lowbloodsugar 12y agoSony's 2014 screens all support 3840x2160/60p, HDMI 2.0. Bit laggy for mouse work though.
- imaginenore 12y agoDell's 5K display is 60hz, or at least most articles say so.
- friendzis 12y agoDisplayPort 1.3 is 32Gbps
- marcocampos 12y agoIt probably uses Multi-Stream Transport by combining the signals from two DP 1.2 ports. Something more or less like Dual-Link DVI but using 2 ports. Regarding graphics cards performance probably only high-end graphics card from Nvidia and AMD (Quadro/FireGL) can drive a screen like this with decent performance.
- crb 12y agoFor anyone else who hadn't heard of it: this is what the (never-defined) "MST" refers to in the article. I'd never heard of it: it's basically daisy-chaining, or using a USB-like hub, for DisplayPort.
- anon4 12y agoMaybe they'll use two connectors and present it as two 2560x2880 monitors?
- astrodust 12y agoNo, they use two connectors bonded together.
- dbcooper 12y ago24 not 32 bpp - the alpha layer is not sent to the display.
- uniclaude 12y agoIf that's right, then we've got: 5120*2880*24*60/(1024^3): 19.77GB/s Which might work within the 20gbps offered by TB2.
- rando289 12y agoI'd bet against it. Those kind of specs are almost never reliably achieved. Besides, "DisplayPort version 1.3, which was expected to be finalized in Q2 2014, will increase overall transmission bandwidth to 32.4 Gbit/s" wikipedia
- pilif 12y agoaside of what rando289 said about not reaching the theoretical maximum, you're mixing up units. You'd have to divide by (1000^3) as bits are always measured in proper SI units (1KBit = 1000 Bit). TB does 20 GBit/s And 5120x2880x24x60 Bits/s / (1000^3) is 21.23 GBits/s, so even in the best-case scenario (which is likely unrealistic), you wouldn't have enough bandwith over TB2. DisplayPort 1.3 will solve the issue of course, but that doesn't help me personally much as the hardware I'm using is a 2012 retina MacBook (which I'd be theoretically willing to replace to be able to use the resolution we're talking about here) and a 2013 MacPro (which I won't replace this early), neither of which have DP 1.3 support.
- uniclaude 12y agoOh, I didn't know that. Let's wait for DP 1.3 then.
- dbcooper 12y agoApparently it supports 10 bpp input, so raise the bandwidth required by 25% for a 10bit workflow. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/31.htm#dell_up2715k http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/31.htm#dell_up2715k
- 7952 12y agoCould you integrate the graphics card into the moniter? Surely the bandwidth between the PCI express card and the motherboard will actually be less than the bandwidth of the cable to the display.
- justincormack 12y agoThere are some Sony screens that do this.
- hrjet 12y agoBut the latency will probably be huge enough to be a blocker.
- valarauca1 12y agoHeh, you solved one problem by creating another. It works fine if you only have 1 display, then you can run everything display side. But now lets say you have 3 displays. Now each built in GPU has have the ability to talk to other items on the PCIe bus, not just the controller. This sounds like a blessing. The host PC would only have to upload the window contents once, then each display would send the information to each other. Simple right? But now we have to deal with hardware latency, and cross vendor standardization. Which are largely problems then bandwidth.
- kalleboo 12y agoI never had any problems running multiple displays on separate PCI graphics cards on my 2002 PowerMac G4, why would that be a bigger challenge now?
- JohnBooty 12y agoEach of the PCI graphics cards in your 2002 PowerMac was using a long-established standard signal (VGA) to communicate with the monitors, so there was no problem. If you build the graphics card into the monitor, you'd need a new (non-existant) standard to pipe graphics bitmaps and draw instructions between the PC and the monitor. (Unless X is up to the task... hahah) OR, you could just extend PCI express over cables to the monitors. Which would work (you can already buy PCI express breakout boxes) but then you have much greater latency between the card and the system, etc etc etc.
- ebbv 12y agoThat's why this monitor is intended to use 2 separate inputs. If you read the article you'd know that already.
- darkstar999 12y agoNo need for the snark. The article says "if". I don't trust that.
- ebbv 12y agoConsidering they talked about MST during the announcement AND there's not really any other viable way to drive this display, it's a pretty safe bet it will use two inputs and MST. The snark is because your objections are lazy, and unimportant.
- cdr 12y agoI've been wanting a new monitor. Ideally a large, high resolution, high refresh rate monitor. Everything I've read though has lead me to hold off for precisely that fact - interconnects are currently completely insufficient to handle that kind of data, so two of three is the best you can get. Big + 4k+ = terrible refresh rate, big + 120hz = low resolution. Hacky solutions some models use like having the monitor pretend to be multiple monitors using multiple ports (as this Dell is apparently doing) have a number of issues AFAIK.
- sliverstorm 12y agoHDMI and TB are playing a bit of catchup, but I was under the impression DP can do it today.
- cdr 12y agoTechnically, in theory, yes. In practice, no - every 4K+ monitor I'm aware of using DP uses the 2-monitor hack. http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-monitor-doesnt-exist/ http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-monitor-doesnt-exis... Hopefully in a year things will have caught up some.