VESA updates all DisplayPort 2.0 products to the new DisplayPort 2.1 standard

Tudor Cibean

Posts: 172   +11
Staff
In a nutshell: The new spec includes improvements to make DisplayPort tunneling through a USB4 link more efficient and, thus, allows higher concurrent data transfer speeds. DisplayPort 2.1 cables also have more stringent requirements, allowing them to be longer without compromising on the supported bandwidth.

VESA announced that it released the updated DisplayPort 2.1 specification, which continues to be backward compatible and supersedes the previous version. While the maximum supported speeds remain the same, the new standard introduces under-the-hood improvements and more stringent cable requirements.

The association claims it has been working with companies to make sure that all DP 2.0-certified products will support the newer, more demanding spec. This includes cables, docking station chips, monitor scalar chips, PHY repeater chips, and GPUs, such as Intel Arc and integrated ones from AMD's 6000 series mobile CPUs.

DisplayPort 2.1 now uses the same physical layer (PHY) specification as USB4 and adds a new bandwidth management feature enabling more efficient DisplayPort tunneling over USB4. The latest DP revision also mandates support for VESA's Display Stream Compression (DSC) codec and Panel Replay capability.

DSC bitstream support can reduce DP transport bandwidth by 67 percent, all while remaining visually lossless. Meanwhile, Panel Replay can reduce the bandwidth used by DP tunneling by over 99 percent when displaying a static image. In turn, these improvements allow for higher data transfer rates through USB4 while concurrently using DisplayPort tunneling.

VESA has also updated the requirements of DisplayPort cables, including ones with Mini DP connectors. Passive DP40 cables, which support a maximum throughput of 40 Gbps, now support lengths beyond 2 meters. Meanwhile, passive cables certified to operate at the spec's maximum capability of 80 Gbps can now be over 1 meter long.

There have been rumors recently that AMD's Radeon RX 7000 GPUs launching in the coming weeks will support the DisplayPort 2.1 standard. In comparison, Nvidia's new GeForce RTX 4000 series only supports DP 1.4a, with the company claiming that gaming monitors supporting the latest spec are still a ways away in the future.

Permalink to story.

 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,955
Staff member
Props to Linus for calling out the DP 1.4a 4K/120Hz shortcomings?
It's disappointing that the 40 series didn't support DP2.0 but DP1.4 can do 4K 144 through to 240 Hz when using DSC - it's a better compression system than chroma sub-sampling and I would argue that most people wouldn't immediately recognise it in use, until it was pointed out to them (and even then, it's probably going to be debatable whether they're actually noticing or not).
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,247
It's disappointing that the 40 series didn't support DP2.0 but DP1.4 can do 4K 144 through to 240 Hz when using DSC - it's a better compression system than chroma sub-sampling and I would argue that most people wouldn't immediately recognise it in use, until it was pointed out to them (and even then, it's probably going to be debatable whether they're actually noticing or not).
Perhaps, but how future proof is that GPU with that old DP port?
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,955
Staff member
Perhaps, but how future proof is that GPU with that old DP port?
If the near future (I.e. within a couple of years) is more than 8bpp 4K at 240Hz, then it's not future-proof at all; as things currently stand, the 40 series can use DP1.4 or HDMI 2.1 to achieve that, with both using DSC.

It is, of course, distinctly possible we may start to see some 4K monitors with higher refresh rates than that over the next couple of years, but who knows what inputs they'll require.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,247
If the near future (I.e. within a couple of years) is more than 8bpp 4K at 240Hz, then it's not future-proof at all; as things currently stand, the 40 series can use DP1.4 or HDMI 2.1 to achieve that, with both using DSC.

It is, of course, distinctly possible we may start to see some 4K monitors with higher refresh rates than that over the next couple of years, but who knows what inputs they'll require.
I personally think that such an expensive GPU should had included at the very least a DP 2.0 port. And since it only has one HDMI port, its even worse.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,955
Staff member
I personally think that such an expensive GPU should had included at the very least a DP 2.0 port. And since it only has one HDMI port, its even worse.
Agreed. I genuinely thought that Nvidia would have offered DP2.0 despite there being no monitors with it - it would have made for an additional marketing extra, at the very least. But then again, the marketing for this new series hasn’t exactly been top notch…
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
Gamer Meld was talking about this, about how the RX 7xxx-series will support DP2.1 while the RTX 4xxx-series only supports DP1.4 although I didn't really give it much mind because I doubt that it would matter at this point in time.

I could be wrong though because I'm not an expert in display connector specifications.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,247
I really wish that DisplayPort was more widespread. Too many displays still only have HDMI.
Which I honestly dont understand why, especially on the TV market.

HDMI ports has a license cost, DP doesnt, yet these damned TV's dont include not even one DP port.

Makes zero sense to me.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,955
Staff member
HDMI ports has a license cost, DP doesnt, yet these damned TV's dont include not even one DP port.
DP is far more twitchy than HDMI when it comes to cable length (and quality). There's also a good amount of historical user experience with HDMI to overcome for little-to-no benefit for the average consumer.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,247
DP is far more twitchy than HDMI when it comes to cable length (and quality).
Maybe that comes because its not that widely exposed/available on the TV market.
There's also a good amount of historical user experience with HDMI to overcome for little-to-no benefit for the average consumer.

Kind of chicken and egg paradox, but maybe also applies to my point above, people simply dont know about it because TV's never included not even one of those ports.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
Which I honestly dont understand why, especially on the TV market.

HDMI ports has a license cost, DP doesnt, yet these damned TV's dont include not even one DP port.

Makes zero sense to me.
6xmzsg.jpg
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,502   +3,247
The electrical requirements for DP are much tighter than they are for HDMI, unfortunately, so even though there's a license fee to pay for the latter, bulk manufacturing costs make it cheaper in the long term.
That I didnt knew so now I wonder, how much money would that requirement add per TV and if assuming the industry adopted the standard, how would that benefit the customers?
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
The electrical requirements for DP are much tighter than they are for HDMI, unfortunately, so even though there's a license fee to pay for the latter, bulk manufacturing costs make it cheaper in the long term.
Well, there's no question that they ARE pretty damn cheap. That is, if you know where to look for them and aren't looking for one that appears to be made of gold! The biggest dollar store chain in Canada is called
Dollarama and they have all kinds of cool tech stuff for dirt cheap!

Here's the HDMI cable that I've used for the last five years without issue:
3027313_0_L.jpg

Vibe Axcess 5' HDMI Cable (Supports 4K): CA$3.50 at Dollarama

Three and a half Canadian dollars for a 5' HDMI cable that supports 4K? When I saw it I was like "How bad could it be?" and decided that $3.50 was worth the "risk" only to discover that it worked as well as any fancy-looking cable sold by Monster.

The other day I was in there and saw a 16GB USB Flash drive for $4.75 (brand-new, not yet listed on their site). It's only USB 2.0 but for $4.75 I was like "Oh, right on, eh?". :laughing:
 
Last edited:

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,955
Staff member
That I didnt knew so now I wonder, how much money would that requirement add per TV and if assuming the industry adopted the standard, how would that benefit the customers?
Well here's the thing - for the average TV user, DP provides no benefit over HDMI.

The latter, in version 2.0 (which has been around since 2013) is good for 4K @ 60Hz 8bpp, 4K @ 120Hz 8bpp with 4:2:0 compression, and 4K @ 60Hz 10bpp with 4:2:0 compression.

Even if one goes all the up to the likes of LG's 8K TVs, these all use HDMI 2.1, which can hit 120Hz 10bpp with DSC.

The industry just doesn't need to shift to another interface.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,350   +4,358
Well here's the thing - for the average TV user, DP provides no benefit over HDMI.

The latter, in version 2.0 (which has been around since 2013) is good for 4K @ 60Hz 8bpp, 4K @ 120Hz 8bpp with 4:2:0 compression, and 4K @ 60Hz 10bpp with 4:2:0 compression.

Even if one goes all the up to the likes of LG's 8K TVs, these all use HDMI 2.1, which can hit 120Hz 10bpp with DSC.

The industry just doesn't need to shift to another interface.
The annoying part is that video cards can have up to 4 DPs but only a single HDMI. As a result, you MUST use the DPs for multi-monitor setups.