Talk:DisplayPort/Archive 1

blind connection by just feeling
Please explain, translate for non borg-native speaker what that means

From what I've read it will have (or is capable of) DVI 1.0 compatibilty.

http://vesa.org/press/dellhplenovopr.htm -Alex

- Advantages

* 10 Gbit/s forward link channel supports high resolution monitors, 2560x1600, with single cable. Note: 70fps*24bpp*2560*1600=6.9 Gbit/s.

^ this is surely not an accurate way of calculating the bandwidth used by a particular video mode. displayport sends in packets with headers and such... so
 * Correct. It is not intended to be accurate.  Just to show that it is under the 10Gbit/s maximum throughput.  Daniel.Cardenas 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

bits per channel?
The overview states 8 or 10 bits per colour channel, whereas the technical specs further down the page lists support of "color depth of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16 bits per component". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyo (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

photograph
Dell has been showing off a DisplayPort monitor for a while. Perhaps a photo of it would be appropriate?

http://www.gearlog.com/2007/05/dell_shows_off_superslim_displ.php

- Actually I think the Samsung was before Dell http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/samsungs-30-inch-lcd-with-worlds-first-displayport-game-on/ Ciper 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DRM
Does DisplayPort support DRM between devices in its current form? Are there any plans of DRM support in the future?
 * Reread the overview. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Software/Hardware Support for Monitor auto rotation feature?
Will DisplayPort have the capability of supporting auxillary monitor functions like Auto screen rotation when turning the screen? This would then involve the monitor manufacturer to create a auto rotation software which would trigger the rotation function within the Video drivers. However, I wonder if there is a general function within Windows that would trigger the video drivers to make it function. Cyberglobe (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I came to this article hoping to learn why the manufacturers feel DVI and HDMI aren't good enough for this application. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't mention what features have driven the development of DisplayPort. This isn't my area of expertise, but if you add this info, the article will be better. Foobaz·o&lt; 01:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the driver is money: HDMI users must pay license fee, display port is "free". The new Dell Latitude E models have Display Port built in and this is the explanation I got from Dell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.111.15.100 (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason is the bandwidth limitation of DVI. A single DisplayPort can support 2560x1600 resolution + audio. Great for 30" displays or for smaller size very high DPI displays in the future (ink/ebooks etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.243.183 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

apple
didn't apple reffer to "mini displayport" in thier presentations, does this differ in any way from the standard displayport? Plugwash (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Competing against HDMI installed base
How does displayPort supporters think displayport can win the fight against the installed base of HDMI that is quite large in some countries. Price? I may miss something but I see no big technical advantages over HDMI. Andries (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the companies that support DisplayPort the main reason would be the lack of licensing and royalties (compared to 4 cents per HDMI device). Also DisplayPort was designed for the PC market to replace DVI/VGA. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No xvYCC Color Space Support?
xvYCC ist just the normal RGB color space where every color has 8 bit (0 to 255). This is compared to the sRGB color space, where every color has 8 bit, but only values 16 to 235 may be used. There is nothing special about this color space and since DisplayPort can have up to 16 bit per color, it has a color space billion of times bigger than xvYCC. When being operated in 8 bit per color mode, it is exactly the xvYCC color space. So this comment is misleading. It implies that the xvYCC color space has more colors or a different set of colors that cannot be transferred via DisplayPort. Neither is true! xvYCC is a just a protocol description (for TVs, DVD players and similar devices) how to transfer the data in such a way, that old devices can still get their sRGB color space and new ones can get their xvYCC color space (as far as I understood it, the data is transmitted like normal sRGB and additional information is hidden within the data stream that only xvYCC capable devices can see; this ensures full backward compatibility with old devices). Only this protocol (the way of transferring the data) is not supported by DisplayPort, but the color space itself is of course supported (there is no color in the vxYCC color space that you could not code as DisplayPort signal, unless the DisplayPort operates only in the 6 bit per pixel mode). Even DVI supports it. Even analog VGA supports it. So in theory an active converter could convert a xvYCC stream to a DisplayPort RGB stream and another one could convert the DisplayPort RGB stream back to xvYCC; the resulting xvYCC will be identical to the original one (the whole conversion is totally lossless), no color information is lost in the process. So when people refer to DisplayPort vs HDMI and mention the xvYCC color space, what they are actually trying to say is:

Assume you have a video stream in the xvYCC color space (wherever it comes from) and you have a TV that supports xvYCC video stream input, you can simply transfer this xvYCC over HDMI (and get a much better TV picture compared to sRGB color space). However if you must use DisplayPort between your DVD player and your TV, there is no way to transport this xvYCC stream directly. You could use an active converter in between as mentioned before; which doesn't even exist so far and if anyone was creating one, it will probably be rather expensive since it needs a lot of expensive active components. Of course you could say, why doesn't the device just output the stream directly to DisplayPort instead? If the device itself dynamically creates the xvYCC stream, that is easy (passing the data to a DP driver is easier than converting the data to a xvYCC stream), but what if the device doesn't create the xvYCC stream at all but only reads a "pre-created" stream? What if the video data is already stored in xvYCC format on its internal storage? In that case it can passively pass this stream to a HDMI port, but it would need an active converter unit to power a DisplayPort outlet, increasing the production costs for such a device noticeably.

It is expected that digital cameras, TV signals, DVDs/BlueRay will use xvYCC encoded signals in the future to increase the color quality of the pictures - these devices can just forward the xvYCC stream between each other using HDMI, but they can't using DisplayPort (they always had to convert the stream first) and this is the disadvantage of DisplayPort. --Mecki78 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mecki, you do not seem to understand what a color space is since you seem to be confusing it with color depth. The xvYCC color space has a wider color gamut than the sRGB color space so it is capable of colors that can not be reproduced with sRGB at any bit depth. To be exact 55% of the Munsell colors can be mapped to the sRGB gamut but 100% of those colors can map to the xvYCC gamut. As such HDMI does have a clear advantage when it comes to support for the xvYCC color space. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap, What Are Your Units?!
No, seriously, I'm fine with anyone adding things and keeping inane things that few people truly care about, but at least do it with rigor! That chart has four full columns of meaningless numbers without an explicit statement of what unit is being recorded. -75.187.53.11 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It says "Data rates" and "Gbit/s" at the top. --82.179.218.11 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

possible high resolution refresh rates? & practical effects on input lag
With some exceptions, lcd's seem to use 60 hz refresh rate. The question I have is, can Display Port enable 2560x1600 @ 120 hz and 24 bit color? If not, what about 1920x1200, 120 hz, 24 bit? How are the popular single chip microcontrollers with LVDS+DisplayPort capability implementented - does use of DP get advantage in terms of "Input Lag" aka less buffering/processing despite having the signal go through the same chip that offers LVDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.126.54 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LCDs TVs and the like currently on the market that advertise 120 Hz refresh rate don't actually get a 120 Hz signal. Instead, the signal is transmitted at 60 Hz and then the TVs do some form of frame doubling or interpolation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.117.67 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Auxiliary channel speed
The auxiliary channel is only capable of 1Mbit/s and yet the article states "Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc." I'm confused as to how you could use the Auxiliary channel for "USB links, camera, microphone, etc" at that speed. The apple 24inch LCD Displayport computer display has USB links, camera, microphone and speakers but I believe that is being sent over a separate USB link.

Should this text be changed from "Auxiliary channel can be used for touch-panel data, USB links, camera, microphone, etc." to "Auxiliary channel can be used for low bandwidth data such as touch-panel data, EDID, etc"

--24.127.143.125 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mini Displayport integrated to DP 1.2 as of 2009-11-10
http://www.vesa.org/ (no direct link) Milpitas, CA., November 10, 2009 – The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) today issued its Mini DisplayPort (mDP) Connector Standard, defining the new, small connector that supports the full range of power, signaling and protocol capabilities defined in the DisplayPort Standard Version 1, Revision 1a. Mini DisplayPort meets the need for a smaller form factor connector for devices such as thin portable computers and add-in cards with multiple display interfaces. The mDP connector can be used as an alternative to the standard DisplayPort connector defined in Version 1, Rev. 1a. The mDP standard defines the mechanical dimensions of the mDP connector and the cable assemblies and adaptors that are supported. Devices using the mDP connector will meet all the electrical and protocol specifications required by DisplayPort 1.1a, and cable assemblies incorporating an mDP connector at either or both ends must meet the cable assembly electrical specifications required by the standard.

Originally developed by Apple for its new generation of portable PCs, Mini DisplayPort is much smaller than DVI (Digital Video Interface) or VGA connectors and enables full function display output on ultrathin notebooks and netbooks. Earlier this year, Apple agreed to license the mDP interface to VESA for inclusion in the DisplayPort standard.

VESA is finalizing DisplayPort 1.2, which incorporates mDP and doubles available bandwidth to 21.6 Gb/second. The increased bandwidth enables new capabilities such as multi-monitor support via a single output connector, higher resolutions, refresh rates and color depths, along with high performance 3D displays. Masklinn (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Dell models
I'm removing the (reference-free) advertising for Dell support of DisplayPort because it is factually incorrect. E.g., my inspiron E6500 does not have displayport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.173.144 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DisplayPort, ++DP logos
This article misses DisplayPort logos. The DisplayPort.org website which is supposed to contain them only has low-res GIF versions. This is a critical issue since dual-mode DisplayPort which can transmit HDMI/DVI signals uses a new con, a "++DisplayPort" Icon, and without this logo, the article can not reflect the fact that DisplayPort is compatible with HDMI/DVI.

If somebody could go and extract the logos from the DisplayPort.org, then probably render them in proper SVG using either low-res versions or images embedded in one of their PDF presentations, that would be greatly appreciated. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 18:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded File:DisplayPort_plus_plus.png, however SVG conversion is still much needed. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of terminology
"...with a symbol rate of 1.62 or 2.7 Gbit/s." The symbol rate and bit rate of a communications channel are not the same - this phrase is incorrect and is misleading. The symbol rate is the number of symbols transferred across the channel per second. The baud rate is the number of binary bits transferred across a channel and is the product of the symbol rate and the symbols per second (constant for a given symbol). The bit rate is different again; it is the number of data bits passed across the channel (excluding any header/footer bits) and is the useful measure of channel bandwidth from a data transfer point-of-view.

Infact, the author of the article seems to be very confused as to what a symbol is; using quantities of Gbit/s and GHz - both of which are incorrect! The symbol rate of a channel is symbols per second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.21 (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've checked the specification v1.1a and you're right the symbol is actually 10 bit, symbol clock is 162, 270 and 540 MHz and link data rates are 1.62, 2.7 and 5.4 Gbit/s, while effective data rates are 1.296, 2.16, and 4.32 Gbit/s per lane after decoding. I've corrected the article to reflect this terminology. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Optical options
Not any info on this that I could see... obviously you can't plug an optical cable into an electrical socket, so are the optical connections in the device, or is a transceiver used, or either? 131.203.113.36 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the article is incorrect in assuming that DisplayPort 1.1a spec explicitly defines an optical interface; all it does is specify that Repeaters and Composite devices can include a "box-to-box" Hybrid device that can use altermnate physical interface to transmit the DisplayPort stream. I'm making corrections. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Notebooks with DisplayPort
I don't hink the full featured list of notebooks with DisplayPort connector is appopriate in the main article, so I moved it here. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) "* Acer Aspire 8930, 8938, 8940 and 8942.
 * Alienware M11x, M15x and M17x.
 * Apple MacBook, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air use Mini DisplayPort.
 * Asus M60J, B43, B53.
 * Dell Adamo 13, Studio XPS 13, 14, 15, 16, Latitude E6400, E6410, E6500, E6510, Z600 and Precision M2400, M4400, M4500, M6400, M6500, M6500 Covet.
 * Fujitsu LifeBook S710, E780 and Celsius H700.
 * HP ProBook 5310m, 5320m, 6440b, 6445b, 6450b, 6455b, 6540b, 6545b, 6550b, 6555b, EliteBook 2540p, 8440p, 8440w, 8540p, 8540w, 8740w and Thin-Client t5740, t5745. HP Envy 14 and Envy 17 have Mini DisplayPort.
 * Lenovo ThinkPad X301, T400s, T410s, T410, T420, R500, T500, T510, W500, W510, W700, W700ds, W701, W701ds. (X200s, X200, X200 Tablet, X201s, X201, X201 Tablet support DisplayPort via the optional X200 Dockingstation.)
 * Toshiba Satellite Pro S500, Tecra M11, A11 and S11 with Mini DisplayPort."

Royalty-free ?
I think DisplayPort is not royalty-free anymore.

"Beginning January 1, 2010, all new DisplayPort related standards issued by VESA will be available to non-VESA members through purchase only. DisplayPort 1.2 is the current version of the Standard and recommended for all new designs. It is free to members and can be purchased by non-members." ( https://fs16.formsite.com/VESA/form608559305/secure_index.html )

Unless someone raises an objection, I'll remove all mentions of DisplayPort being royalty-free from this page in around one week.

EDIT : In progress... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.28.129 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

EDIT : Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.28.129 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Royalties are payments made per volume sold - in the case of computer and video interfaces, typically per each physical port sold. Even though the DisplayPort specification is not free anymore (i.e. the copy of the text needs to be purchased for non-VESA members), VESA does not really collect any per-port royalties, unlike HDMI, FireWire etc. So DisplayPort indeed remains royalty-free. Reverting. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 16:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this term started - Wacky Port?
I've heard this a few times now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.1.79 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WHAT you can do with displayport
So, at the end of the day, does this article even bother telling you WHAT you can do with a displayport with examples? No. It just provides you with tech specs and history. The authors obviously wrote this article for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the comprehensive list of things you can do with DisplayPort. First, you can connect your monitor to your video card, and second, you can also crack nuts with it. The developers of the DisplayPort standard mostly considered the first usage scenario however. --188.123.231.4 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?
The advantages bit isn't neutral at all. It clearly favors this standard over dvi/hdmi. This should be changed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.8.158 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, because nothing can have advantages over HDMI? They were cited from the reviews referenced in the article. --188.123.237.4 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't seem neutral (and I've marked it accordingly). Repeatedly calling DVI and HDMI "legacy" interfaces doesn't make them such, especially when they are both (1) still so widespread (even when it comes to extremely-high-end monitors for photographers and graphics professionals), and (2) more than capable of matching DisplayPort's actual image quality (which is arguably what really matters). Really, calling them so defies any possible meaning of the word "legacy". 79.129.214.4 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed a citation from a press release signed by Intel, AMD, Dell, Lenovo, Samsung and LG which specifically calls VGA, DVI and LDVS "legacy interfaces". Restored. --188.123.231.4 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this citation helps a bit, along with the new wording (because it is the "official" opinion of certain equipment manufacturers), but I'd strongly argue that marketing speech (being self-interested by definition) is not a suitable encyclopedic source (unless it's an article on marketing :). To make matters worse, the press release groups VGA and DVI together, almost implying that DVI is an analog source (only DVI-A/DVI-I are, and are seldom used nowadays). Marketing speech at its best (or worst, depending on POV).
 * Anyway, I won't "re-restore" :) for the time being, but I still find this section not neutral enough. The relevant section of the Digital_Visual_Interface article, mentioning the same press release, is much better written, because it shows that it doesn't necessarily adopt the manufacturers' opinion... (BTW, I'm the same poster as 79.129.214.4) 194.42.156.53 (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Article content and presentation
A good portion of this article reads like a whitepaper reference sheet. Example:


 * "The DisplayPort connector supports 1, 2, or 4 differential data pairs (lanes) in a Main Link, each with a raw bit rate of 1.62, 2.7, or 5.4 Gbit/s per lane with self-clock running at 162, 270, or 540 MHz. Data is 8b/10b encoded where each 8 bits of information are encoded with a 10 bit symbol. So the effective data rates after decoding are 1.296, 2.16, and 4.32 Gbit/s per lane (or 80% of the total)."

Even articles on technical topics shouldn't need to be this technical. Readers shouldn't have to be well versed on the topic to follow along. Even as the article progresses getting into more advanced details, it should remain encyclopedic giving readers a reasonable opportunity to infer meaning from context (see WP:NOT PAPERS}. The info in this example should probably be moved to the technical specs section.  Grammar and punctuation could use some work too.  An example of that:


 * "A notable limitation is that dual-mode can only transmit single-link DVI/HDMI, as the number of pins in the DisplayPort connector is insufficient for dual-link connections; an active converter is needed for Dual-Link DVI (and analog component video such as VGA, since it employs digital to analog conversion)"

Clearly we can do better. If there is an issue with adding, modifying, or removing content from this article in an effort to improve it, then let's have the discussion here. Let's resolve these differences and move on. GoneIn60 (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding DP hubs
This part from the AMD product section strikes as an obvious lie. There is no such hub. It was promised 2 years ago, but you cannot get it. Also there are practically no daisy-chainable monitors worth mentioning that are user-attainable. Also it is impossible to distinguish 1.1 vs 1.2 DP similar to hdmi. Not even in device specs you can find that.

The quote from the page: As of February 2011, the latest HD 6000 series graphics cards feature support for DisplayPort 1.2, allowing daisy-chaining multiple monitors from the same connector. A DisplayPort hub containing three Dual-link DVI connectors is also available.

Also the article would need DISADVANTAGES of DisplayPort. Mainly the unavailability of cables, hubs, adapters. And if available, prices of DP enabled hardware are twice of what would be expected. The article overall is just overly positive regarding DP and fails to mention its many pitfalls (which are not the fault of the technology itself but lie elsewhere). Warms me up a bit. --Neikius (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can challenge unsourced comments by adding a "citation needed" inline tag. Then if it's not sourced or discussed on the talk page within a reasonable amount of time, simply remove it.  See WP:NOCITE.


 * In this example, I went ahead and sourced the hub comment. Dell did indeed release a product that splits a DisplayPort signal into three Dual-link DVI connections (it shows in stock at other sites like Amazon.com).  As for daisy-chaining, you are correct in that it's slim pickings on hardware support at the moment.  However, the comment just refers to the feature of the video card and doesn't make any claim about market availability.  On disadvantages, the truth is there just aren't that many.  Most that exist are talked about in the Comparison with HDMI section.


 * I understand your frustration, however. The article still needs a lot of improvement in my opinion (see the section above regarding some of my rants!).  GoneIn60 (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I myself am not an editor, no time to become one. Also your link is not what I meant. DP 1.2 supports multiple streams and your link is an ordinary vga-splitter type "hub". Not a real DP hub we expect to get sometime in 10 years. That hub presents itself as a single monitor and then splits the picture. Look at the specs. 1280x1024 resolution on all 3 monitors. They are making a joke I guess. Also it is interesting how thunderbolt got its hub being a derivate of DP, but DP does not. I did extensive search on the topic and I have yet to find a single DP hub or daisychainable monitor. We got the thunderbolts though. And they are not compatible having the same connector! VESA is plainly a joke organisation. Is this enough for the link to be disputed and removed? --Neikius (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the hub I linked to is not a video "splitter". It allows each DVI monitor attached to be recognized independently by the graphics card, meaning each one can have its own unique image/resolution.  It mentions this in the full description.  A splitter results in the same image being displayed on each display, so that term doesn't apply here.  This may not have been what you meant originally (single DisplayPort to multiple DisplayPort), but we're talking about what the statement in the article says: DisplayPort hub containing three Dual-link DVI connectors.  I don't see how the statement itself is wrong.  Also there's no "prediction" of when the daisy-chaining technology will be widely available.  Therefore, I don't see what it is you want removed.  It's fine to have a discussion about what you don't like about the technology, but that belongs in a forum and not on Wikipedia, unless it can be stated as fact and/or labeled as criticism by an industry expert. Hope that helps!  GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out this link: http://accessories.euro.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=ie&l=en&s=corp&sku=482-10001 and open pdf device specs. It is a DP 1.1 device, hence it cannot be a multi-stream hub. It is a video splitter. Also mentioned in the web page. "Device Type	Video splitter - 3 ports" The discussion is then whence this could be classified as a video hub or video splitter. IMHO this is not a DP hub. It is a video splitter with DP input and is totally misplaced in the main article! It just doesn't fit into the same line as mentioning of DP 1.2 daisy chain. This is pure misdirection. Marketing tricks. How does this belong to wikipedia? --Neikius (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All this device tries to do is ride on this: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135244 MST Hub. Misleading users into thinking the device does the same while it does not. I will remove myself from further debate since you think this is a wrong place, but my opinion hopefully stands for the others to see. Maybe the article itself can be written in a less misleading way. --Neikius (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch! I didn't see that it was a DisplayPort 1.1a device.  The specs also say it's for single-link DVI and not dual-link.  Obviously that link is a bad example.  I will remove the reference, mark the comment "citation needed", and remove it in a month or two if no one can back the claim up with a valid source.
 * By the way, I didn't mean to imply that this was the wrong place to have a "technical" discussion. This is actually the perfect place for that!  It's when the discussion transitions into "I like this more..." or "I prefer that over this..." when there might be an issue.  Thanks again and I seriously hope you will reconsider editing the article, since it's obvious you've done a lot of research and would likely have a lot to contribute.  I just started working on the article recently myself, and a lot of its claims existed long before I arrived on the scene!  GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

CPU utilization?
The obvious advantage of a good GPU is that it offloads most of the video processes freeing the CPU (or even taking over many parallel CPU functions). It would seem that the DisplayLink interface puts many of the video processes back on the CPU before being put out the USB port. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks. 96.255.159.197 (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)mjd Nevermind! Meant to post this over on the DisplayLink page... 96.255.159.197 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)mjd

Cable length with full bandwidth?
The information box says "3 meters for full bandwidth transmission over passive cable" while the Advantages over DVI, VGA and LVDS section says "Full bandwidth transmission for 2 meter cable". Which is it? 87.253.81.146 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No more passive HDMI/DP compatibility?
The folks over at HDMI.org have decided that DP->HDMI cables are a violation of the HDMI specification: "The HDMI specification defines an HDMI cable as having only HDMI connectors on the ends," Charlene Wan, director of marketing for HDMI, told the site. "Anything else is not a licensed use of the specification and therefore not allowed." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388289,00.asp 68.174.151.247 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed your URL. First of all, the article is over a year old with little or no change to what is currently on the market today. Also, the marketing director conceded that a DisplayPort-to-HDMI "adapter" was likely OK, involving a male DP to female HDMI. Such an adapter would be considered passive, so this does not mean the end of passive DP-to-HDMI conversion.  The concern is with cables that have a male DP on one end and a male HDMI on the other, which is only one type of passive conversion. — GoneIn60 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DisplayPort 1.3 and 4K 3D @ 120Hz and 8K 3D @ 120Hz
I contacted VESA and asked the following: "With 4K and 8K displays starting to become available, are there any plans for a DisplayPort 1.3 with support for 4K 3D @ 120Hz and 8K 3D @ 120Hz?"

This was the reply from Bill Lempesis at VESA: "DP 1.3 is under development. The topics you mention are under discussion."

If any journalists read this, maybe poke VESA and see if you can do an article about it, then someone else here can use that as a cite.

Rescator (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

large monitors
I see one cable supports 2560×1600 which is the resolution most 30inch monitors use. Can two cable be used for larger monitors? -Ravedave 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * DisplayPort was specifically DESIGNED to support high-resolution displays and does so better than any other display interface available on the market. It supports 2560x1600 @ 120 Hz, 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz and will soon support 7680x4320 @ 60 Hz (and so probably 3840x2160 @ 120 Hz). By comparison, dual-link DVI-D and HDMI 1.3 max out at 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz. Single-link DVI-D and HDMI 1.0 max out at 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz (and even that only by making use of "reduced blanking", which is not a problem though). If you want to use high-resolution displays, DisplayPort is the way to go. 87.77.37.79 (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Connector dimensions
It would be nice to have exact physical dimensions in the infobox (and possibly elsewhere in the article). However, I am unable to locate any definitive source. Maybe someone has access to the official VESA specification...? --Mormegil (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Here is a publically posted version of the older VESA v1.1a spec. You'll find the dimensions of the various connectors at page 201: http://hackipedia.org/Hardware/video/connectors/DisplayPort/VESA%20DisplayPort%20Standard%20v1.1a.pdf 67.170.106.182 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Display Port cable Pin 20 sleep issues
Could someone edit the page and make note on the pin 20 sleep / wake issue?

Basically, cheap display port cables have pin 20 connected on both sides. This violates the spec, and often results in display port monitors not been able to come out of sleep. Sometimes it can even damage the computer video card. Having this information on the wiki page would help a lot of people suffering this problem.

http://www.necdisplay.com/documents/Miscellaneous/DisplayPort_Notice.pdf http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1803684 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.37.114 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

DisplayPort "unusable for most home theater projector applications" (aka "unusable over long cables").
"However, HDMI is designed to sustain full bandwidth up to 10 meters of cable length, while DisplayPort can carry full bandwidth for up to 3 meters only, which virtually marked it unusable for most home theater projector applications." <-- Given that DisplayPort's "full bandwidth" is 6.48 Gbit/s (8.1 Gsymbols/s) per lane, which amounts to 25.92 Gbit/s for four main links, plus 0.72 Gbit/s for the auxiliary link, resulting in 26.64 Gbit/s total, even if it cannot carry "full bandwidth" over long cable runs, it should take a LONG cable before data rate drops below the 3.96 Gbit/s (4.95 Gsymbols/s) which e. g. HDMI 1.2 provide and which are required for 1080p60. So that it "doesn't work in a home theater application" doesn't appear to make a lot of sense. On the contrary, one of DisplayPort's selling points is the ability to run an uncompressed digital video signal over very long cable runs. Even compared to HDMI 2.0's 14.4 Gbit/s (18 Gsymbols/s), DisplayPort's bandwidth has to degrade by 46 % due to the long cable before its bandwidth becomes less than that of the HDMI connection. I will remove this criticism unless more evidence is provided that HDMI is actually "better over long cables". 79.245.173.80 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a comment that I support the removal. The cited source did not support the claim, and therefore, its removal was justified. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726000450/http://www.displayport.org/news-presentations/press-releases/eDPpr.pdf to http://www.displayport.org/news-presentations/press-releases/eDPpr.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130624223749/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analogix-delivers-industrys-first-displayporttm-transmitter-ic-to-also-support-legacy-dvi-to-hdmi-displays-56263647.html to http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analogix-delivers-industrys-first-displayporttm-transmitter-ic-to-also-support-legacy-dvi-to-hdmi-displays-56263647.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714123322/http://ca.msi.com/index.php?func=newsdesc&news_no=578 to http://ca.msi.com/index.php?func=newsdesc&news_no=578

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Cable length
The cable length limitations cited with reference note 63 is inaccurate. Following the reference and reviewing the source clearly states that cable lengths sold are typically three meters, not the standards limitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:8500:978c::19bd (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130624223749/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analogix-delivers-industrys-first-displayporttm-transmitter-ic-to-also-support-legacy-dvi-to-hdmi-displays-56263647.html to http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analogix-delivers-industrys-first-displayporttm-transmitter-ic-to-also-support-legacy-dvi-to-hdmi-displays-56263647.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edn.com/article/472107-Bridging_the_new_DisplayPort_standard.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Open standard
The article says "DisplayPort has several advantages over VGA, DVI, and FPD-Link: *Open standard available to all VESA members" This sounds like a contradiction in terms. If it's an open standard, anyone should be able to see how it's documented and implement it, without having to join a trade association for the privilege of the standard being "available" to them. Could someone more knowledgeable please clarify? Wyddgrug (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Royalty rate controversy
VESA.org and Displayport.org say the DisplayPort specs are royalty free: http://www.displayport.org/faq/

It is clear that VESA does not provide any patent license with the use of the DisplayPort spec. Page 9 of the DisplayPort specification, which is linked in the section above, states that patent claims do exist against DisplayPort. This version of the DisplayPort spec, dated January, 2008, states that the holders of these patents, including AMD and Intel, are willing to license these patents on RAND terms: "VESA draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that compliance with this specification may involve the use of a patent or other intellectual property right (collectively, “IPR”). VESA takes no position concerning the evidence, validity, and scope of this IPR. The following holders of this IPR have assured VESA that they are willing to license the IPR on RAND terms." (A list of patent holders follows).

However there is a 3rd-party that appears to be claiming that DisplayPort implementations infringe on several patents. MPEGLA offers licensing to the patents at a rate of $0.20 per unit: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/DisplayPort/Pages/FAQ.aspx

The list of claimed patents as of March 5, 2015 is:  Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. JP 5,082,209 US 7,386,216 Koninklijke Philips N.V. CN 101904175 Silicon Image, Inc. US 6,151,334 US 7,088,398 Sony Corporation JP 3,903,721 JP 5,088,379 US 6,963,968 http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/DisplayPort/Documents/displayport-att1.pdf  The article should be refined to distinguish between VESA (zero-royalties) vs a non-VESA member's claims. The claims by MPEGLA are notable and should appear in the article, but it may be more appropriate to include them in a "controversy" section rather than in the 1st paragraph given that the authority on Displayport (DisplayPort.org) says the technology is royalty free. I attempted to correct this in the article but my edits were reverted. 67.170.106.182 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that perhaps further clarification should be in its own section and not necessarily mentioned in the lead section. However, your edit doesn't appear to have addressed the controversy or retain the Business Wire reference, so I can understand why it was reverted. I'm curious to hear what GrandDrake has to say. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The news from the MPEG LA is more recent than the royalty free statements that were made by VESA. So far VESA has not said anything about the MPEG LA license. I have moved the royalty information from the lead section to the cost section. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you will also agree, that currently there is no Licensee for the proposed license by MPEG LA for DisplayPort products. Your "Cost" Segment "DisplayPort has a royalty rate of $0.20 per unit from patents licensed by the MPEG LA.[44] The royalty applies to DisplayPort products that are manufactured or sold in countries that are covered by one or more of the patents in the MPEG LA license.[44] The MPEG LA license includes DisplayPort patents from Hitachi Maxell, Philips, Silicon Image, and Sony." is actually only repeating the claims made by MPEG LA and therefore WP:POV. Your "interest" in HDMI seem to reflect that. 85.179.136.197 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * VESA has not yet said anything about the MPEG LA license and the MPEG LA has a history of making patents pools. It is no surprise that some people dislike the MPEG LA announcement but it is verifiable information. As for the veiled statement made about me I prefer verifiable information and that can also be seen on the MPEG LA talk page. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The MPEG LA has also a history of making patent claims and then issuing them royalty free. There are no costs associated(except for member fees and the like), as of now. "DisplayPort has no royalty rate", as of now. You are clearly wrong and you should take it out immediately or maybe open up a new segment called royalty claims, or the like. The fact that your only source is a PM by a firm holding a good amount of patents related to multimedia is not sufficient at all. You present only one side. They announced the "availability" for that specific license. So far no one hast taken that "opportunity" (in public at least). You don't hear the other side and make assumptions.78.52.200.50 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The MPEG LA has never released a license with a royalty rate and than later on made that license free. You are probably thinking of VP8 in which the MPEG LA made a deal with Google before they made a license. So far VESA has not said anything about the MPEG LA license so at the moment there is no other side. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You still have not changed it. This is plain ridiculous. There are no costs associated with DisplayPort as of now. And this is not something you can dispute. MPEG LA claims you need a license to produce DP products, that's all. After a month of no news whatsoever there is still no "other side" or any news outlet that would have covered it, except for one press release that went completely unnoticed, except for some sites that most likely automatically published said release after it landed in their system. Again, you could open up a new segment called something like Licensing Controversy, but as it stands the Segment "Cost" under Specifications is a misrepresentation of the reality."DisplayPort has a royalty rate of $0.20 per unit from patents licensed by the MPEG LA". That is untrue. It has no royalty rate. It may have a royalty rate in the future, or it may stay royalty free. But that's not for you to judge.92.225.18.195 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the authority on if there is a license required is VESA and their displayport.org site. They are a standards body. There is no license required. This article is shamefully remaining POV even after it has been pointed out and corrections reverted. As to GrandDrake's claim that the MPEG-LA claims are more recent, they are also clearly partisan and they can't refute a standards body. Also, they're not more recent; the FAQ at DisplayPort.org is up to date; is there some objective reason to believe it is not up-to-date? Simply reload the page and check, as of right now today it says it is royalty free. Stating otherwise without equivocation is, in simple terms, a "lie." 76.105.216.34 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many standard bodies don't deal with patent licensing and for example that is true for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and High Efficiency Video Coding. As for the DisplayPort website it doesn't say anything about the MPEG LA license. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There still is no license (fee) associated with DisplayPort. How many times do I have to tell you. There is no license. Both parties would have to agree and sign a license deal before you can claim there are associated costs. You can't refute that but still won't back down. This is clearly not NPOV and you should know better. You didn't even consider my compromise proposal, instead you are trying to distract. You are presenting one POV. To this very day there have been no further news reports (there weren't any to begin with), no additional information or statements. All we have is a wildly unreported (and that is a clear understatement) press release and a website entry claiming not even one licensee.78.52.224.13 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are licensees listed at the MPEG LA website. It is clear that the amount of licensors signing up under the agreement has also expanded since the press release back in March. It is interesting to note, however, that the DisplayPort FAQ page now specifically mentions:
 * That statement was added to the FAQ section sometime after September 7, 2015. The wording in this article should be changed to reflect this. Mention of the claimed royalty should be brief, so that paragraph should be shortened to two sentences at most about this, until more coverage appears in reliable sources. As of today, it still isn't being reported on, other than that business wire PR. Per WP:DUE, the claim itself appears to be in the minority at the moment and should not overtake the Cost section like it is presently. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that the only licensees are subsidiaries of companies that hold one or more of the patents in question aka nonpaid licensees 2601:5CB:4400:7800:2E0:81FF:FEB5:AD1E (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that despite what we notice, which is original research that's not permitted, the notice on the main DisplayPort FAQ page is enough to question the claimed royalty, and this needs to be inserted into the article. We also need to give the claim less prominence in the article until a clear analysis is given in a reliable source. So far, we don't have that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The VESA website states that the organization will not be involved in disputes regarding DisplayPort patents. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The VESA website states that the organization will not be involved in disputes regarding DisplayPort patents. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor expressed a desire to keep this thread unarchived. Adding this notice should retain it for at least another year. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719060349/http://www.st.com/st-web-ui/static/active/en/resource/technical/document/technical_article/CD00271554.pdf to http://www.st.com/st-web-ui/static/active/en/resource/technical/document/technical_article/CD00271554.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010172142/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Introducing-the-Panel-Self-Refresh-Technology/1384 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Introducing-the-Panel-Self-Refresh-Technology/1384

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DisplayPort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926232615/http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33064/135/ to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33064/135/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

USB Type-C to DisplayPort adapters are passive
Active adapters involve the adapter receiving video in one format, converting it to a different format, and outputting that. USB Type-C to DisplayPort adapters do not convert video from one format to another. There is no "USB-C" video format. A USB controller with DP Alt Mode support is connected to DP lanes from the GPU and essentially acts as a passthrough for the DP signal, when given the command to activate DP Alt Mode. USB Type-C to DisplayPort adapters contain a chip that gives this command, once the connection has been negotiated then native DP signals are sent out of the USB port. The adapter does not convert them to anything because there is nothing to convert, the signals are already in DP format.

Active adapter does not mean "anything beyond just plain wires connecting one pin to another", or "anything with a chip inside". Bear in mind that DisplayPort Dual-Mode to DVI/HDMI passive adapters also have a chip inside, but they do not convert video from one format to another. When using a passive adapter, the DisplayPort port sends out DVI signals or HDMI signals instead of DisplayPort signals. The adapter does not need to convert anything, because it is already sent in the desired format to begin with. However, the signal does need to pass through a chip to convert voltages and other things. But contrast that with an active adapter, which does not involve the DP port sending out different types of signals, it sends out its native DisplayPort signals, the adapter receives those DisplayPort packets, decodes them, and then generates and transmits an equivalent DVI/HDMI data stream.

See here for example:

Passive: https://www.paradetech.com/products/ps8121e-dp-to-hdmidvi-level-shifter/

Active: https://www.paradetech.com/products/ps171-dp-to-hdmidvi/

Note that in the passive adapter, the chip receives signals that are already formatted as DVI/HDMI TMDS signals. The chip in the adapter does not need to do any protocol conversion. Compare that to the active adapter, which receives DisplayPort signals and converts them to HDMI on its own.

USB-C host controllers with Alt-Mode support such as this (https://www.paradetech.com/products/ps8743/) pass native DP signals from the GPU out through the USB port when operating in DP Alt-Mode. Not some kind of different signal format that needs to be converted to DisplayPort by the adapter.

If you want to say that USB-C to DisplayPort adapters are active because they have a chip inside, then you will also need to say that DP to DVI/HDMI dual-mode-based adapters are active as well. You cannot simultaneously say that USB-C to DP adapters are active but DP++ to DVI/HDMI adapters are passive, since they operate on essentially the same principle. And if you want say that DP++ to DVI/HDMI adapters are active, then these need to be distinguished from true active adapters which receive DisplayPort signals and perform a conversion process to produce equivalent DVI/HDMI signals, and also needs to be reconciled with the fact that the entire industry including VESA themselves refer to DP++ adapters as passive. GlenwingKyros (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You do understand that the lead section refers to Type-C HMDI adapters and Type-C component video adapters, and not Type-C DisplayPort adapters, do you?
 * As for passive/active debate, this article clearly maintains the distinction between 'active conversion adapter' vs 'Dual-mode passive adapter', where 'active conversion' involves both protocol re-encoding and voltage level conversion - i.e. DP sinks that take 1-4 LVDS lanes from the DP source and re-encode the video into 4-lane TDMS on the HDMI/DVI connector or analog VGA/YPbPr, while passive adapter only involves voltage level conversion for Dual-mode DisplayPort transmitters. --95.28.27.97 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding then. The sentence I edited,
 * "DisplayPort connector is backwards compatible with HDMI and single-link DVI through the use of passive adapters; for conversion to analog component video and dual-link DVI, and conversion from DisplayPort Alt Mode USB Type-C connector, active adapters are required."
 * does not come across the way you say, with the way it is worded it appears to be (clearly) talking about USB-C to DP adapters from my view; "for conversion to analog/DL-DVI [from DisplayPort], and conversion from USB-C [to DisplayPort]" seems to be the natural interpretation. And it made no mention of HDMI in the statement about active adapters being required for converting from USB-C so it does not seem likely to me that a reader would conclude it is talking about USB-C to HDMI adapters.


 * If it is a mistake in wording though then that is alright, it happens. But in any case, the lead section of the DisplayPort article does not seem to be the right place to discuss the design of USB-C to HDMI adapters; while it is semi relevant since they operate by converting DP protocols from the USB port, I think it would be better suited in the USB-C DP Alt Mode subsection rather than the main DisplayPort section (though I welcome other opinions). GlenwingKyros (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Without addressing the specifics regarding active vs passive in this discussion, I agree that this isn't material that we need to have in the lead section. It needs to be covered in the body cited by appropriate references. I've modified the lead accordingly, which reflects the same format it had before recent changes were made (though I've retained some of the updates). --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So you've just went and plain reverted everything I did to the Dual-mode section, pretending to be doing some legitimate grammar fixes. How nice of you. --95.28.27.97 (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are the changes to the article following your recent edits along with mine: diff
 * Some of your changes are still there. Be specific if you'd like to reinstate some of the changes that aren't. I'm open to a compromise, but I feel some of the edits weren't improvements. For example, you removed a hidden anchor tag and capitalized "dual-mode". You also felt the need to put "transmitter" after every instance of "dual-mode", which is unnecessary clutter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

3440 x 1440 @ 120Hz with 10 Bit Colour. - Bandwidth and DP1.2 specs
There is no detail in the Wiki about what the bandwidth is for 3440 x 1440 at 120Hz and in 10 Bit as per a lot of IPS panels. As this has become a very popular Gaming screen mode and aspect Ratio of ~21:9. This screen resolution is now looking towards 144Hz and 166Hz which will need DP1.4 or similar. The article could be improved by adding this additional information, specifically by putting 3440x1440 into the chart with its associated refresh rates and colour bits.


 * To my knowledge there is exactly 1 monitor with 3440×1440 @ 120 Hz with 10-bit color, and it has not even been released yet. At the very least, the number of monitors with this configuration can be counted on one hand. I would not consider this "very popular". In any case, the table is only a short list of example formats, it is not intended to be exhaustive. If it listed every format that had even 1 monitor built for it, the table would be endless and counterproductive as it would just make it more difficult to find the information people are actually looking for. For any arbitrary format a reader might want to know about, the formula for calculating data rates is given in the footnotes anyway. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

DisplayPort dead?
This article sounds like an advertisement spiel for an up-and-coming, hip new technology. However, it cites an article from 2012 talking about predicted market share for 2014... which was a while ago.

Did DisplayPort get killed so hard by HDMI that no one bothered to update this article? I can only speculate, so I ask any experts who still care about this article to please revisit it. Thanks. 71.231.58.8 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure DisplayPort not killed, but what is this "Micro DisplayPort" this article mention, never heard about, are we talking about Type-C connector ? --PaKo (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I make an update because I investigate this point and see VESA moved to USB Type-C integration, --PaKo (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Feel free to open Google.com and type "DisplayPort market share", then use your credit card to purchase one of these extensive market reports. I do not have $5000 to spend for a 3-digit number, when anyone can see that DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are found on just about every desktop graphics card and integrated motherboard.
 * Notebooks (except Apple MacBooks) still mostly use DVI-I, but it will be superseded by USB Type-C with DisplayPort alternate mode in just a few years.--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 16:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Displayport is quite common on laptops too. One selling point is of course the smaller size of the connector so you can have several DP outs in a single GPU. Displayport has also always been one step ahead of HDMI. When HDMI 2.0 finally added UHD @ 60Hz, Displayport has support for UHD @ 120Hz & 8k. That USB type C angle is pretty nice too. Reversible connector that can take care of USB *and* display duties. Right now you need USB Type C -> Displayport adapter thought. I don't agree DVI-I is common at all in notebooks, that's a huge obsolete connector. Usually you get at least HDMI, sometimes DP and VGA can't be killed.
 * Barleyman74 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * DisplayPort is firmly entrenched now. On the display side it's still kinda a "high-end" feature though, so you'll mostly find it on rather expensive monitors. With the UHD revolution rolling, we can expact to see even more adoption. DisplayPort is backed by huge companies like AMD, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Lenovo, LG, nVidia, Samsung, Texas Instruments. It's definitely here to stay. It also plays a huge role in Thunderbolt, which basically combines DisplayPort and PCI-Express into a single interface. 84.159.215.63 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree this article seems to be quite old, but I'm not sure if I agree that we should keep the title of this section as DisplayPort dead? -- that's actually what I was coming here to see. My latest notebook only had HDMI, so I thought DisplayPort was dead. However, another laptop I have only has DisplayPort. Since that is only anecdotal, I'm including a link to this article that I just found: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2030669/laptop-accessories/hdmi-vs-displayport-which-display-interface-reigns-supreme.html which has a pretty good comparison to HDMI and information. It seems that DisplayPort is not dead. (Note: sorry for also pasting this in the HDMI to DisplayPort comparison below. Feel free to fix if you want. I was originally coming here to comment on that section but put this here since it was also relevant.)50.245.34.78 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)