New display cable created makes 8K Resolution @ 120Hz possible

[ionbasa]

when gaming on PC don't you get 4:4:4?

Yes. 4:4:4 is full RGB color.

[martinrox1568]

No point of 120Hz because it's 4:2:0, If it can do 8K 60Hz with 4:4:4 then it's awesome.

Sorry, I'm not all that educated in displays. Does this refer to the chroma subsampling?

[GoodBytes]

DisplayPort 1.3 does 8K with 4:2:0 (although Wikipedia isn't saying how many colors, so I assume the standard 8-bit colors per channel), at 60Hz, BUT using a single stream. Meaning no tearing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

[geforceftw]

whatever gets you on...

 

8K @120hz is ballin.

so much ball talk lol.

[LAwLz]

when gaming on PC don't you get 4:4:4?

Yes

 

If you take a JPEG screenshot and/or record yourself playing then you will most likely end up with 4:2:0 though.

[switchkill]

*

seconded 

[BiG StroOnZ]

I have edited my post with my calculations. ~8Gb/s is what DIsplayPort 1.2 is

 

But it's not, and your calculations are incorrect. Display Port 1.2 is 5.4Gbit/s per lane and it only has up to 4 lanes. Totaling 21.6Gbit/s. Display Port 1.3 is up to 8.1 Gbit/s per lane totaling 32.4 Gbit/s. This (SuperMHL) has 6 lanes @ 15.9 Gbit/s per lane totaling 95.55 Gbit/s (32 bit color @ 8K 120Hz) . They aren't even comparable, but yet you said its in line with DP. SuperMHL makes even Display Port 1.3 look like a joke.

 

[GoodBytes]

The bandwidth of Display Port are written on the page of the calculator.

 

DisplayPort

v1.0/1.1 = 8.64 Gbit/s.

v1.2(a) = 17.28 Gbit/s.

v1.3 = 25.92 Gbit/s (up to ~80.27 Gbit/s with lossy compression).

DisplayPort send the video signal in packets. MHL doesn't.

So DisplayPort can adapt the way it works. You want 4 lanes? you got it! You want 1 lane with the power of 4 together forming 1 lane?, you got it. You want 6 lanes? No Problem. You want 4000 lanes to daisy chain 4000 4x4 resolution miniature displays, you can.

This ability is what allows DisplayPort to be integrted into anything that uses packets really cheaply (read: almost free), such as thunderbolt or USB (some smartphone supports that). Of course, in the case of USB, you'll be restricted with USB bandwidth limitations. So ideally you want to use USB 3.1, and that is what Type-C USB can support if the manufacture wants.

[BiG StroOnZ]

The bandwidth of Display Port are written on the page of the calculator.

 

DisplayPort send the video signal in packets. MHL doesn't.

So DisplayPort can adapt the way it works. You want 4 lanes? you got it! You want 1 lane with the power of 4 together forming 1 lane?, you got it. You want 6 lanes? No Problem. You want 4000 lanes to daisy chain 4000 4x4 resolution miniature displays, you can.

This ability is what allows DisplayPort to be integrted into anything that uses packets really cheaply (read: almost free), such as thunderbolt or USB (some smartphone supports that).

 

The bandwidth of Display Port is also displayed when you Google it:

 

 

 

So you are telling me, that you are going to ignore the sources that claim it only has four lanes, and say it has more than four lanes?

 

Straight from VESA.org:

 

[GoodBytes]

But the 4 lanes can be merged here, as they are packets being sent.

This is like the Internet, your packets goes all over the place on many many routers on the web, and they all regroup together, all organized, at the end. So the Internet uses the billions upon potentially more billions of lines crossing cities, states/province, and countries, in either wired or/and wireless form, all forming each lanes. But you are not going "Oh hang on, my file is too big for the Internet, let me rar it in 3000 files, and send that to you, for you to get them all, and extract them.

That is the big advantage of DisplayPort, that is why you can support daisy chaining, up to 4x 1920x1200 monitors at 60Hz, or 2x 1920x1200 at 120Hz, or more monitors at 60Hz at lower resolutions (like 6 1600x900 (going by memory here). If it was not in packets, then it can't have that merging ability, and that means not matter what resolution you have, you would only be able to daisy chain UP TO 4 monitors. And not be able to do 2 monitor with a higher resolution or higher refresh rate.

[BiG StroOnZ]

But the 4 lanes can be merged here, as they are packets being sent.

This is like the Internet, your packets goes all over the place on many many routers on the web, and they all regroup together, all organized, at the end. So the Internet uses the billions upon potentially more billions of lines crossing cities, states/province, and countries, in either wired or/and wireless form, all forming each lanes. But you are not going "Oh hang on, my file is too big for the Internet, let me rar it in 3000 files, and send that to you, for you to get them all, and extract them.

That is the big advantage of DisplayPort, that is why you can support daisy chaining, up to 4x 1920x1200 monitors at 60Hz, or 2x 1920x1200 at 120Hz, or more monitors at 60Hz at lower resolutions (like 6 1600x900 (going by memory here). If it was not in packets, then it can't have that merging ability, and that means not matter what resolution you have, you would only be able to daisy chain UP TO 4 monitors. And not be able to do 2 monitor with a higher resolution or higher refresh rate.

 

This doesn't change what the bandwidth of a single connector is and because of that, it still is doesn't provide as much bandwidth as SuperMHL does. SuperMHL can drive up to 8 monitors at once. While DisplayPort 1.2 can drive a maximum of 5 @ 1050p, 4 @ 1080p or 1200p, 2 @ 1600p, and only 1 @ 4K. Simply put, DisplayPort just doesn't offer as much bandwidth as SuperMHL does, even DP 1.3 will be behind this technology. No matter how you slice it, maximum link bandwidth for DP 1.3 is still only 32.4  Gbit/s, DP 1.2 even less than that. Even DP 1.3 will only be able to drive two 4K monitors simultaneously. I know you hate this connection, but it's impossible to refute it. It completely blows anything that's available currently out of the water. There's nothing to argue against. It has 95.55 Gbit/s total bandwidth (actually more @ 4:2:0 since that calculator is based on 4:4:4), not even DP 1.3 has anywhere near that. Daisy Chaining doesn't mean it can magically support higher resolutions at higher refresh rates, or more monitors at higher resolutions. It's still limited by its total bandwidth between lanes period. You are trying to make it seem like Daisy Chaining will suddenly allow DP 1.2 to be able to drive 8K Resolution @ 120Hz. Which it can't because it's just not how it works. Its total bandwidth is its total bandwidth. That's why DP 1.2 can only do 5 @ 1050p, 4 @ 1080p, 2 @ 1600p, etc. etc. etc. because it's still limited by its total bandwidth. Even if it can do two 1080p monitors @ 120Hz. It's still a limit it has because the maximum capabilities of the cable itself. Daisy Chaining won't magically make it be able to do four 1080p monitors @ 120Hz, it can only do two because that's its limit by its total overall bandwidth. Which is why in order for DP 1.2 to drive a 5K monitor, it needs dual DP, because its still limited by its bandwidth with a single cable... that's why the title of the article is, "Look out HDMI and DisplayPort, There's a New Cable in Town"

[LukaP]

snip

 

but his point is also that with the DP standard (when it catches up in bandwith) there will be no tearing on the monitor, because it uses a single stream per monitor, whereas MHL just strapped together a bunch of DP1.3 comparable streams into one cable and introduced the option of multi streaming, to make it seem like a viable solution for 8K 120Hz, even though noone really wants that. What displayport does is it can separate itself into many streams, but that is only when you have more than one monitor connected to it. otherwise its packeted nature means it is only one stream

 

To make an analogy, its like when Intel and AMD couldnt properly make multicore dies yet, so they just strapped two dies onto a chip (or two cpus on a mobo) and called it a day. but it wasnt exactly optimal, because there was immense latency whenever one core needed data in the cache of the other core (basically analogous to the tearing due to multiple streams)

[rici]

The number of lanes in a cable has NO effect on tearing. Lots of current standards use multiple lanes for sending data. DVI has a single and dual link standard, which refers to the number of lanes. HDMI is an evolution of DVI, with 4 lanes.

When using display port with a passive adapter, it actually sends the raw data over the cable, not data packets. The reason for active adapters is to convert to packets, for higher bandwidth. Display port uses 4 lanes, as can be seen in the connector pin out on Wikipedia.

The reason why there is tearing on 2-tile displays is to do with the h-sync, v-sync and DE signals. These are the signals that trigger a new line and frame, and the pixel clock is derived from them. When using 2 different cables, there are 2 sets of these, and they are not synchronised. In the cable itself, these are either separate electrical lines, or embedded into one of the lines.

To increase bandwidth, using multiple lanes is often better than just increasing the frequency. Its the reason why graphics cards memory bus sizes are bigger on the higher end cards. Increasing frequency only goes so far.

I work in the video group of a major electronics company, for anyone looking for a source for this.

[Guest Strangerbob]

I'm getting way more than 72 Gbit/s. You sure you are inputting 7680x4320?

 

The calculator assumes 4:4:4 color palette and you cant change that.

 

Since superMHL does 8k @120hz @ 36bit  WITH 4:2:0 color palette. You need to halve the result you get. Or calculate for 8k @ 60hz @ 36bit.

 

 

The 4:4:4 only mode for the calculator is mentioned in the description below it. You should have read it.

Because right now you are misinforming people saying superMHL does more than 72 Gbit/s.

[GoodBytes]

The number of lanes in a cable has NO effect on tearing. Lots of current standards use multiple lanes for sending data. DVI has a single and dual link standard, which refers to the number of lanes. HDMI is an evolution of DVI, with 4 lanes.

 

Minor correction, and I think it's just due to the simplification that you are doing, but people will miss interpret what you are saying, so I want to try to clear it up:

 

Dual-link DVI is not 2x DVI in one, like literarly 2 DVI cables stuck together. It's just more pins (more TMDS pairs to be exact) to increase the overall bandwidth of DVI. Alternatively, larger pins (and cable wire) could have done it, but then you create compatibility problem. That is why you can't power 2 single link DVI in daisy chaining from 1 dual link DVI, or have a DVI splitter (dual-link DVI to 2x single link DVI).  There is a miss understanding with the working "dual-link", it is refereed to the pixels per clock cycle, and not the number of DVI cables put into 1, else it would be called dual-Lane DVI. And also, it would mean that when you connect a monitor that need more than a single link DVI, the graphics card will it as 2x monitor, which is obviously not the the case in reality, as the number of lanes is still 1.

 

HDMI is not an evolution of DVI per se. Basically, what I am trying to clarify, is that it is not DVI + audio + DRM. I mean yes, this is what the end results it gives to the consumer, but not how it works. It uses the same EIA/CEA-861 standard in how the signal specification as DVI (other similarities it can emulate by the HDMI video out controller) , making it compatible easily, but it stops there. As it uses the same standard in signal specification, but the HDMI controller can adapt itself to send a DVI signal with great ease when it detects DVI cable is used, especially that single-link DVI uses less pins as HDMI, you don't need a converter chip on the adapter. That is also why HDMI can't be converted down to DVI and then down to VGA, or why HDMI to DVI is limited to single link DVI. HDMI needs more pins to allow the HDMI video output controller chip to be able to send a signal that it can emulate as dual link DVI.

[BiG StroOnZ]

The calculator assumes 4:4:4 color palette and you cant change that.

 

Since superMHL does 8k @120hz @ 36bit  WITH 4:2:0 color palette. You need to halve the result you get. Or calculate for 8k @ 60hz @ 36bit.

 

 

The 4:4:4 only mode for the calculator is mentioned in the description below it. You should have read it.

Because right now you are misinforming people saying superMHL does more than 72 Gbit/s.

 

SuperMHL does 8K 120Hz @ 32 bit with 4:2:0 color palette. So you don't have to halve the results since it actually supports up to 48-bit. It says it can do 32 bit @ 8K 120Hz right on the main page.  Also 4:2:0 uses less bandwidth, not more. Even if it only has 72 Gbit/s is still quite a bit more than DP 1.2 and DP 1.3 since DP 1.2 has a total bandwidth of 21.6Gbit/s and DP 1.3 total bandwidth of 32.4 Gbit/s. So no matter how you go about calculating its total bandwidth it is still quite a bit more than DP.

[Guest Strangerbob]

SuperMHL does 8K 120Hz @ 32 bit with 4:2:0 color palette. So you don't have to halve the results since it actually supports up to 48-bit. It says it can do 32 bit @ 8K 120Hz right on the main page.  Also 4:2:0 uses less bandwidth, not more. Even if it only has 72 Gbit/s is still quite a bit more than DP 1.2 and DP 1.3 since DP 1.2 has a total bandwidth of 21.6Gbit/s and DP 1.3 total bandwidth of 32.4 Gbit/s. So no matter how you go about calculating its total bandwidth it is still quite a bit more than DP.

No such thing as 32bit. Thats the same marketing term as 16.2 million colors.

There is only 24bit, 30bit and 36bit. And the fact that you dont seem to understand that these ALSO take bandwidth makes me think you dont really understand how this works.

 

Ye. superMHL has a max of 72Gbit/s. End of story. Do your own research, i cant be asked.

[BiG StroOnZ]

No such thing as 32bit. Thats the same marketing term as 16.2 million colors.

There is only 24bit, 30bit and 36bit. And the fact that you dont seem to understand that these ALSO take bandwidth makes me think you dont really understand how this works.

 

Ye. superMHL has a max of 72Gbit/s. End of story. Do your own research, i cant be asked.

 

 

 

 

 

[.spider.]

32bit is 24bit for "yuv"+8bit for an alpha channel, but for what the alpha channel on a screen link?

[BiG StroOnZ]

32bit is 24bit for "yuv"+8bit for an alpha channel, but for what the alpha channel on a screen link?

 

 

24-bit color

Using 24-bit color, also called True color, computers and monitors can display as many as 16,777,215 different color combinations.

 

32-bit color

Like 24-bit color, 32-bit color supports 16,777,215 colors but has an alpha channel it can create more convincing gradients, shadows, and transparencies. With the alpha channel 32-bit color supports 4,294,967,296 color combinations.

 

 

 

http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001557.htm

[.spider.]

That's not how the alpha channel work.

More convincing transparencies is great, does it mean I can see the wall behind my TV better?

[BiG StroOnZ]

That's not how the alpha channel work.

More convincing transparencies is great, does it mean I can see the wall behind my TV better?

 

Every where I look it says that 32 bit has the same number of colors as 24 bit, but the remaining 8 bits are used for transparency effects. Which is the same as the article I posted.

 

So if that's not correct, and not how it works. Glad to explain how it does and why these sources are wrong?

[.spider.]

An alpha channel stores the transparency http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PNG_transparency_demonstration_3.png of an image

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PNG_transparency_demonstration_2.png

Regular displays can't get transparent.

[BiG StroOnZ]

An alpha channel stores the transparency http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PNG_transparency_demonstration_3.png of an image

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:PNG_transparency_demonstration_2.png

Regular displays can't get transparent.

 

So then what are they talking about in the article...

[Guest Strangerbob]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scroll down and see the chart,

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8843/mhl-consortium-announces-supermhl-new-standard-new-cable-to-drive-8k-tv

 

 your thinking about different "bits" of color. In the calculator you need to choose 36bit. It needs the bracketed FAKE bits next to each selection not just the first one.

 

 

 

This whole mess is the work of marketing departments. Same reason why we have two different contrast ratios today. A 1000:1, which is normal for all TN and IPS and a MEGA INFITNITY:1 which all TN and IPS also have...

And when OLED comes around with ACTUAL infinite contrast, noone will get it by looking at the spec sheet.

 

Same with response time. Only Grey2Grey is advertised as 1 ms. Yet all other color shifts are worse, and an average response time for your GAMING LCD is actually 10ms.

 

Same with refresh rate for TVs. I think you get it... 

 

This goes on and on. But i assure you the REAL bits you need to select for super MHL is 36bit.