VESA announces DisplayPort 1.4 standard with support for 8K displays

By Shawn Knight ยท 24 replies
Mar 2, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has finalized and published the DisplayPort 1.4 standard. The latest version, announced roughly 18 months after its predecessor, includes a number of noteworthy features and specifications that may lead some to skip DisplayPort 1.3 entirely.

    DisplayPort 1.4 retains the same High Bit Rate 3 (HBR3) physical interface as its predecessor but utilizes Display Stream Compression (DSC) technology. DSC version 1.2 enables up to a 3:1 compression ratio that's said to be visually lossless (at least, according to VESA member testing).

    As such, DisplayPort 1.4 can drive 60Hz 8K displays and 4K displays at up to 120Hz – both with HDR "deep color." The new standard also supports 32 audio channels, 1,536kHz sample rate and inclusion of "all known" audio formats.

    VESA further notes that the 1.4 standard features forward error correction and HDR meta transport in addition to the aforementioned expanded audio support. Best yet, the latest standard will work over both DisplayPort and USB Type-C connections.

    Given precedent, it'll likely be quite some time before devices actually implement the new standard. DisplayPort 1.3 was announced in September of 2014 but as multiple publications note, there still aren't any products on the market that utilize it. Ideally, manufacturers could skip DisplayPort 1.3 entirely and jump to the latest standard but that's little more than wishful thinking.

    Permalink to story.

  2. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,663   +1,949

    Looks like AMD and nVidia don't care much for whatever VESA is doing these days.

    Years after DisplayPort 1.3 was introduced, none of them bothered to make video cards to support it. They have milked that cow to become a jerky by itself, and we are the suckers.

    It's no wonder 4K and 8K are progressing in the TV market faster than for the PC-s, which in itself is quite a shame, as it used to be the other way round, and we know who to thank for this.

    I seriously doubt they will skip on to 1.4, this is not how those blood suckers operate.
    DaveBG likes this.
  3. Hammayon

    Hammayon TS Enthusiast Posts: 67   +14

    8K displays. Are you kidding me? LOL

    So people all have 1080p displays. Yet they don't have HD content.
    The content they do get is all streaming and of low quality. Most don't even have bluray quality.

    Now, 4K. It's not mainstream yet. Only one channel. It's just starting. I doubt it will be a hit.
    I mean the difference between 480 to 1080p is huge. Not so much 1080p to 4K. It's really just overkill.

    Now we are talking 8K? LOL

    So pc gaming is all in 1080p. With all the graphical fidelity, it's hard to get it to run at 60 fps at 1080p. Now you are talking 4K and 8K?
    Completely unnecessary.

    1080p is here and will stay. The graphic cards only need to get better to support 60 fps at 1080p for most users.

    4K and 8K is still 5 years away to even coming close to be being mainstream.
  4. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,811   +472

    Um where to start... a lot to talk about here. First of all 1080p is inferior for PC gaming than 1440p or 4k. Personally running 1440p and 1080p is a very noticable step down. Just like good audio, if you are exposed long enough to the better quality, it is painful to go back.

    Granted you need high end gear but mid range gear is all you need for good 1080p nowadays. It is certainly not hard to run 60fps at 1080p! ~$200 gfx card and almost any CPU nowadays.

    4k is one or two gfx generations away from mainstream. Realistically if NVIDIA or AMD have fabs running processes close to Intel, we'll see it a lot sooner than later but unfortunately they have not been able to to date.

    VitalyT is right... AMD and NVIDIA have been a bit poor in how quickly they are keeping up with DP and HDMI standards especially considering the best gains are PC due to how poor internet infrastucture is and media content 4k adoption.
  5. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,306   +1,401

    I don't really see this as a problem..... perhaps in the future we will use things like 8k, but right now I see 4k at 120hz being more useful. Just because it supports it doesn't mean we have to use it, were's the problem? My router supports 10gbit eithernet, doesn't mean I need to use it. And if someday I do need to use it, I have it.

    Manufactures using it is something different altogether, but if the tech isn't there to take advantage of it then it isn't a huge deal if they don't support it right off the bat. It'd be nice if they could find a way to make DisplayPort upgrades software oriented, but that'll never happen.
    Darth Shiv likes this.
  6. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

    IKR. It sucks having options.
  7. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 2,040   +678

    Things people say when they are sitting on new tech...
  8. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 2,096   +1,271

    You can thank the lack of competition in the market. Intel and Nvidia have a thumb and AMD, resellers, and OEMs so it's virtually impossible for any competition to arise. At this point AMD is only around to prevent class action lawsuits, they will never beat Intel or Nvidia without serious financial investments.
  9. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,714   +3,695

    Having 8K support is not confined to watching movies or playing games. I don't understand the negativity for 8K support. I'm guessing the thought of daisy chaining 4x2160 or 16x1080 displays never comes to mind with some. If I was to use multiple monitors, I'd love to do it through only one daisy chained cable.
  10. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 1,563   +713

    4k (and 8k) make far more sense for PC users than TV viewers.... the average viewing distance for a television is too far for the naked eye to distinguish the difference between 1080p and 4k unless the screen is like 100 inches... On the other hand, the average viewing distance from a computer monitor lets us actually see the difference - too bad video card horsepower just can't cut it yet...

    It's not the standard that needs to be upgraded (though that's nice), it's the cards themselves... nVidia or AMD supporting Display Port 1.4 right now would just make THEM look bad, as the resulting 4FPS would be pretty pathetic... Heck, it takes dual 980Ti just to run decent 4k right now!
  11. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,714   +3,695

    Let me rephrase my previous comment.


    All these 1080 displays with only two 8K Display Ports. Otherwise it would take six 4K Display ports. Just because we don't setup monitor configurations like this, doesn't mean they don't exist and there is no need in 8K Display Ports.
    yRaz and DaveBG like this.
  12. Technician

    Technician TS Addict Posts: 677   +114

    8k looks great on an 80 inch TV. Wouldn't want more than 40 inch for a monitor though, you start losing parts of the image in your perhephrial vision. I don't want to move my head to play a game, that's part of head tracking and vr I hate.
  13. DaveBG

    DaveBG TS Addict Posts: 302   +97

    I have 4K monitor since 2015. Got 4K TV and camera recently as well. 1080p is dead to me. Looking to upgrade to 8K ASAP and the first company that makes compelling products will win.
  14. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,306   +1,401

    look at what's on some of those screens.....4chan and anime
    cliffordcooley likes this.

    IAMTHESTIG TS Evangelist Posts: 1,255   +454

    8K is needed for VR. I am willing to bet it will be a standard ~10 years from now.

    Squid Surprise is probably spot on here, I bet the AMD and nVidia don't need to up this standard when their hardware can't power games at that resolution and frame rate. So why bother wasting effort in making the interface support it? Doing that would just make inexperienced gamers bash and hate because they can set their game to 8K but it runs like poop.
  16. That's insanity! ...and cool at the same time! :p
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  17. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 1,563   +713

    Unless you're watching from about 3 feet away, I wager you can't tell the difference...

    I suggest giving a read...

    16 1080p monitors daisy-chained would be totally awesome - but this isn't really a practical option for the normal consumer...
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  18. Technician

    Technician TS Addict Posts: 677   +114

    I sit about 2 feet from my monitor. I had a 1080 40" tv as a monitor and it looked bad, the 4k looks a lot better, and I can see the difference. Just saying.
  19. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 1,563   +713

    Talking about the 80" TV... not the monitor....

    Unless you're watching the 80" TV from 3 feet away, you won't be able to tell the difference between 8k and 1080p....

    The problem with resolution is that your eye can only see a finite amount of detail - the average viewing distance is about 8-9 feet away from the TV.... 1080p maximizes this pretty well at sizes between 40-60"... in order to benefit from increased resolution, you need to decrease your viewing distance or increase the size of your TV - but how many people are going to move their couches that close to their TV, and how many people can fit (let alone afford) an 80"+ screen in their home?

    TV companies are simply using the marketing strategy of "this number is higher, so it must be better"... 4k is only useful if it comes with other picture enhancements (wide colour gambit, HDR, etc) - most high-end TVs only include this with their 4k displays anyways, so if you're going high-end, you have no choice but to go 4k.

    But 8k!?!?!? Unless it's being offered with HDR, OLED, etc and is the same price (it isn't!) why would you bother?
  20. Hammayon

    Hammayon TS Enthusiast Posts: 67   +14

    I'm sure 1440p vs 1080p on a BIG screen TV is huge, but not so much on a smaller screen. I'm sure you are a above average gamer which has that kind of setup. I"d love to check it out!. My kind of guy. I'm just really referring to normal gamers, not advanced ones like you bro.
  21. Hammayon

    Hammayon TS Enthusiast Posts: 67   +14


    Um which terrorist organization do you belong to that you need that much coverage instantly? LOL
  22. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,714   +3,695

    NSA! lol
  23. It's a cable standard, the bigger the bandwidth, the better I figure whether used or not by everyone.
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  24. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 1,563   +713

    Certainly - but no need to get excited about it if it doesn't give any tangible benefits for the next few years....
  25. Definitely, especially if it is ridiculously expensive

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...