DisplayPort: the new kid on the block has a bright future - Part 3 of 3

In Part 1 - Cost, I wrote about the inevitably of DisplayPort becoming the dominant display interface standard for PCs and handheld devices, if for no other reasons than cost:

1. DisplayPort avoids the $10k/year license fee of HDMI
2. DisplayPort direct-drive technology eliminates the cost for additional circuitry in computer displays

In Part 2 - Performance and Design, I reviewed some of the performance advantages of DisplayPort over DVI and to some degree, HDMI:

1. DisplayPort uses direct-drive technology, enabling ultra-thin displays and a setting a common standard for laptop and stand-alone displays
2. DisplayPort can drive 30-bit (billions) of colors at high-resolutions and high refresh rates
3. DisplayPort uses smaller, latching connectors and can handle longer cables
4. DisplayPort offers great flexibility in handling, video, audio and data

In this third installment I want to look at DisplayPort in terms of its potential for future digital devices relative to DVI and HDMI.

Futures

Unlike DVI or HDMI, both of which include legacy technology for CRTs, DisplayPort was designed specifically to handle today’s digital displays and to be able to adapt to new features in the displays and devices of the future.

The 45-nm Holy Grail of Chip Size
Chip makers from Intel to AMD to Nvidia are striving to reduce die size to 45-nm and smaller in order to reduce power consumption and increase transistor count. However, a 45-nm process imposes a technical limitation of 2.5V maximum for I/O transistors. HDMI and DVI both use TMDS, which requires 3.6V when running high-speed signals (up to 5.25V for low-speed sideband signals).

The only way around this limitation for HDMI and DVI is to add proprietary, custom circuitry. This translates into increased complexity and increased cost.

DisplayPort in contrast, requires less than 2V for high speed signals, so it can be integrated with a standard 45-nm process - no custom circuitry, no added size, and no additional costs.

Picture-in-Picture and Daisy Chained Displays
As already discussed in Part 2 - Performance and Design, DisplayPort was designed as all digital and uses micro packets to bundle audio, video, and data information. This micro-packet protocol is designed to support more than one audio or video stream, as well as data - all over a single cable. The current DP specification allows for up to six 1080i streams or three 1080p streams. So in the future you should expect to see things like Picture-in-Picture or daisy chained-monitors without additional cables or circuitry.

USB, Webcams, and Touch-Sensitive Displays
DisplayPort not only offers a scalable data channel, it offer a bi-directional scalable data channel. This means that future implementations will be able to support microphones, webcams, USB hubs, or touch-sensitivity built right into the display - without additional cabling and circuitry (this would be especially valuable on laptops where physical space is at a premium).

Dongles and Backwards Compatibility
DisplayPort may be the future, but since a lot of us are dealing with existing displays, laptops and consumer-electronics devices, there will be a need for adaptor cables or dongles to bridge between HDMI/ DVI and DisplayPort.

DisplayPort already offer pass-through support for HDMI signals. So using the appropriate dongle you can hook up your DVD player or cable box to a DisplayPort monitor. Coming later this year, expect to see adaptors that will allow you to connect your DisplayPort video card, to an HDMI or DVI device.

Final Score Card
So let me update my score card:

Feature	DVI	HDMI	DisplayPort
Price	+1	0	+2
Sleeker Displays	0	0	+2
Smaller Connectors	0	+2	+2
Resolution & pixel depth	+1	+2	+2
Long cables	0	+2	+2
Auto-tuning	0	?	+2
Audio	0	+2	+1
Smaller Chips	0	0	+2
Picture-in-Picture	0	+1	+2
Webcams & Touch Displays	0	0	+2
Compatibility	+1	+1	+1

While there is not a clear winner between HDMI and DisplayPort for today's market, in the near future the demands for the, cost benefits, performance, and scalable spec of DisplayPort will become more commanding. The FirePro line from AMD, as well as 30-bit color monitors from Dell and HP, are strongly embracing DisplayPort (but still hedging with at least one legacy DVI port) and I expect to see more card and display vendors move in this same direction next year.

Addendum: For the complete 3-part series on DisplayPort see:

• Part 1 - Cost
• Part 2 - Performance and Design
• Part 3 - Futures

FirePro v8700 accelerator offers 40% boost with GDDR5 memory & twin Display Port connectors

For a while, it was feeling like the Radeon HD 4870 had taken the lead in advanced hardware over the FireGL line (CAD-optimized drivers and RAM aside). But today AMD updated its flagship FirePro workstation accelerator to offer the same technology that has made news in the Radeon HD 4800 series: 800 unified shader processors and GDDR5 memory. But the FirePro v8700 also brings 1GB video memory and optimized drivers for CAD, digital video editing, and 3D visualization. It also adds twin Display Port connectors for the latest generation of hi-rez, hi-refresh,  30-bit color rendering displays as well as a dual-link DVI connector for older monitors. AMD’s press release claims a 40% performance gain over previous FireGLs.

Tom’s Hardware compares 8 FireGL and 8 Quadro FX cards for the pro market

Tom's Hardware today ran through a rather comprehensive comparison of workstation graphics cards. What makes comparison so interesting is the comprehensiveness - 8 current FireGL and 8 Quadro FX cards (although not the new FirePro cards announced at SIGGRAPH).

Workstation Cards Compared

ATI	Nvidia
AMD FireGL V8650	Nvidia Quadro FX 5600
AMD FireGL V7700	Nvidia Quadro FX 4600
AMD FireGL V7600	Nvidia Quadro FX 1700
AMD FireGL V7300	Nvidia Quadro FX 5500
AMD FireGL V7200	Nvidia Quadro FX 4500
AMD FireGL V7100	Nvidia Quadro FX 3500
AMD FireGL V5600	Nvidia Quadro FX 570
AMD FireGL V5200	Nvidia Quadro FX 370
AMD FireGL V3600	Nvidia Quadro FX 1500

Cards were compared on 3D Studio Max 9, Solidworks 2007, Maya 6.5, and Viewperf 10 for CATIA, Ensight, Pro/Engineer, UGS Teamcenter Visualization Mockup & UGS NX.

Tom's Hardware Conclusion: "The Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 may wear the performance crown, but the AMD FireGL V7700 is working at chopping off the legs of Nvidia’s throne. The FX 5600 takes first place in many benchmarks. However, it can’t claim to be the undisputed leader - the FireGL V7700 wins in too many categories."

But as I wrote in a previous post on benchmarking, the best benchmarking tool is to try the cards out to see which performs better in your environment, with your workflow and files (you should check the return policy for particular web vendors to make sure you can return a card).

1. Published benchmarks are certainly a good starting place for your own evaluation.
2. Recommendations from colleagues can also be useful. But make sure they have actually tested the alternatives (i.e. they are not just speaking as a fanboy), that you know what version of driver they tested, and that you understand what their workflow is like relative to your own.
3. The best benchmark is for you to compare the cards yourself, using your data and your workflows, if possible.

New FirePro line is bound to turn some heads -  one with dual DisplayPorts and one for 99 bucks!

AMD just introduced the start of their new FirePro 3D line for Computer Aided Design (CAD), Digital Content Creation (DCC) and simulation markets. Just based on the press release, I've get the impression that AMD is significantly raising the bar.

Quote from press release "Following the ATI acquisition, AMD increased its investment in the professional graphics business and now delivers professional graphics accelerators that perform better than the competition at every price point. The new ATI FirePro brand communicates this focus on performance and features that matter to engineers and designers”, said Janet Matsuda, senior director, AMD Professional Graphics.

The quick and dirty basics:

---

More on these after we get to actually see them at Siggraph next week

Update:: 3D Professor has snagged the first releases of the new accelerators and run a series of tests and evaluations. His conclusions are pretty compelling: "The standards built into the card are exceptional value for money and as we have witnessed here, the Displayport output at maximum resolution was simply mind bogglingly clear." - More from Siggraph.

Display Port: performance advantages over DVI (and HDMI) - Part 2 of 3

In Part 1, I talked about the inevitably of Display Port becoming the dominant display interface standard for PCs and handheld devices, if for no other reasons than cost:

1. Display Port avoids the $10k/year license fee of HDMI
2. Display Port direct-drive technology eliminates the cost for additional circuitry in computer displays

Cost aside, now I want to look at Display Port performance and features relative to the incumbents DVI and HDMI.
(Note: companies like Dell publicly contend that Display Port and HDMI will coexist to meet different product applications - but read in to what they say and you can't help but to compare!)

Ultra-thin displays

Already mentioned as a cost-reduction benefit, Display Port consolidates both external and internal display connections with direct-drive technology. From an aesthetics/performance angle this brings several significant advantages over DVI and HDMI.

• Since there is no need for display circuitry inside of the display, manufacturers can build slimmer and sleeker displays - both external monitors and laptops displays
• The LVDS display interface used inside of current notebooks can only scale to higher resolutions and color depths by using a wider cable. But you already have an increasing number of wires competing for space in the notebook display hinges. So thinner cables means thinner laptops.

Smaller connector
Display Port and HDMI offer more than twice the performance of DVI in a much smaller package than DVI connectors. And they are more user-friendly to connect - without screws!

Over 1 billion colors
Single-link DVI has enough bandwidth to display resolutions up to 1920x1200 with 8 bit color (up to 16.7 million colors) at 60 Hz. Dual-link DVI doubles the bandwidth to support a maximum resolution of 2560x1600 with 8 bit color at 60Hz.

HDMI 1.3 and Display Port both support a maximum resolution of 2560x1600 at 60 Hz with 10-bit color - that over 1 billion colors, enough to eliminate color banding and offer sufficient gamut to edit video destined for a digital cinema theater (check out the new HP DreamColor).

Longer cables
Display Port supports full bandwidth (2560×1600) transmission for cables up to 3 meters, and 1080p transmission for 15 meter cables - significantly greater than DVI (5 meters) and about the same as high-quality (but higher cost) HDMI cables.

Automatic fine-tuning
Display Port features a unique scalable bi-directional auxiliary channel that source-destination handshaking such as the display requesting stronger signal quality if the signal has too much jitter or interference. So you can have a feedback mechanism between the display and the source for automatic fine-tuning. On top of this, Display Port embeds the clock signal as part of the link stream. This means fewer wires so less RFI and better transmission.

Digital, Audio and Data
Like HDMI, but unlike DVI, Display Port can handle both audio and video (as well as data) over single cable. Since most computer displays do not include speakers, the value of audio in the stream for HDMI and Display Port is questionable for computer devices. But of course, support for audio is valuable for consumer electronics devices like TVs and it might end up be very valuable for things like digital projectors.

But unlike DVI or HDMI, Display Port is all digital and uses micro packets to bundle audio, video, and data information. This means that Display Port can freely trade off pixel depth, resolution, frame rate, and the presence and amount of audio and data in the stream. Basically this means a lot of flexibility for different devices of any type (as well as the possibility of things like picture in a picture).

The Data stream in Display Port also has some significant implications I will discuss in the next article in the series (hint: data means support for USB links, cameras, microphones, and touch-sensitive displays).

So let me do my own little score card so far:

Feature	DVI	HDMI	Display Port
Price	+1	0	+2
Sleeker Displays	0	0	+2
Smaller Connectors	0	+2	+2
Resolution & pixel depth	+1	+2	+2
Long cables	0	+2	+2
Auto-tuning	0	?	+2
Audio	0	+2	+1

Basically DVI is antiquated and struggling to keep up with the ever increasing demands of bandwidth, resolution and flexibility.

There is no clear winner between HDMI and Display Port. Display Port is rapidly making its way into the PC market, while HDMI already has a strong hold on consumer electronics. For the foreseeable future they will co-exist (but I am sure they will compete), with DVI slowly fading out of the picture.

Addendum: For the complete 3-part series on Display Port see:

• Part 1 - Cost
• Part 2 - Performance and Design
• Part 3 - Futures

What is the best benchmarking tool for graphics accelerators?

I recently read a question on CGSociety forums on how to evaluate graphic card using benchmarks. Let me share an edited version of the question and then provide what I consider the most realistic and valuable answer.

Question - How do benchmarks reflect real life experience?
Every review I’ve seen shows rather dramatic advantage for the FireGL over the Quadro in Maya’s benchmark. But everyone I have asked, has only used a Quadro and so that is what they recommend. How do benchmarks reflect real life experience? The prices for the two cards are pretty similar on the Net, so if I am comparing them in terms of performance in Maya, how should I choose?

Answer:
Benchmarks are a single metric for evaluating any product, including graphics cards. They test only what they are designed to test. It is virtually impossible to create a benchmark that will cover all possible user cases. Benchmarks are based on specific workloads and actions to run. And while you can look specifically at those benchmarks that best align with what you do on a daily basis, the workloads and tasks are never truly personalized.

The best benchmarking tool is to try the cards out to see which performs better for your particular needs (you should check the return policy for particular web vendors to make sure you can return a card). There is a lot of brand loyalty out there for many products, including graphics cards, which typically is not based on any kind of comparison against the competition. What may have been true for accelerators from a year ago, is not likely true today, as the drivers are constantly enhanced and optimized.

With respect to published benchmark scores, FireGL cards have shown a performance advantage over Quadro in SPECViewperf for a while now, particularly with Maya. It may be that the graphics architecture for FireGL is better suited to run Maya. Or maybe the FireGL graphic drivers are simply better tuned. Even though others may be recommending to go with Quadro, it would be unwise to completely ignore documented benchmarks performance advantages. The difference just means you need to look more closely.

1. Published benchmarks are certainly a good starting place for your own evaluation.
2. Recommendations from colleagues can also be useful. But make sure they have actually tested the alternatives (i.e. they are not just speaking as a fanboy), that you know what version of driver they tested, and that you understand what their workflow is like relative to your own.
3. The best benchmark is for you to compare the cards yourself, using your data and your workflows, if possible.

An informed decision is always the best decision.

Display Port: the new kid on the block is poised to take over - Part 1 of 3

VGA, DVI, Dual-Link DVI, HDMI, and now Display Port. The display market is getting crowded with standards. I’m one of the many individuals in the computer industry who believe that the Display Port is the way of the future. Why?

Display Port was designed as an alternative to digital-display-interface incumbents HDMI (its consumer electronics competitor) and DVI (the current PC standard). It definitely improves some aspects of HDMI and DVI for certain applications. However is this enough to cause a new standard to overtake a more established interface? I think so and I think the reason can be broken down into three primary factors that I will cover in three separate posts:

• Part 1 - Cost
• Part 2 - Performance and Design
• Part 3 - Futures

Cost

Display Port lowers display-to-interface costs in several different ways:

First, Display Port avoids the annual $10,000 license fee (this was reduced from the whopping $15,000 original license fee) associated with HDMI. The HDMI license fees are on top of a per device cost royalty (estimated at four cents per device). Display Port is an open standard so there is no license fee. There are per device costs since Display Port also shares the dubious honor of supporting proprietary DRM (digital rights management). So even if HDMI and Display Port were technically equivalent to the consumer, $10,000/per year will be a significant motivator to computer parts manufacturers.

Second, Display Port consolidates both external and internal display connections with direct-drive technology (similar to the technology used in the original VGA). With Display Port monitors, there is no need for scaling circuitry within the monitor or front-end electronics. The monitor can handle frame-rate and analog-to-digital conversion. This streamlines the implementation of many tasks that are currently supported by multiple components within a computer display (saving $5 to $10 per display).

The cynic in me wonders whether these shifts in cost will actually be passed on to consumers. But regardless, they are definitely a driving factor why so many influential computer parts makers - Intel, Dell, HP, Phillips Samsung and graphics card makers AMD, Nvidia, to name just a few - back the interface and are adding it to new products. For them, Display Port is simply the smarter economic choice so there will be no going back.

While cost may be the prime motivator for computer parts manufacturers, Performance and Design is what will be of most interest to the rest of us. I'll tackle that in my next Display Port post.

The growing demand for smaller, less power hungry multicore GPUs

With CPUs there was a demand for more power in smaller and less power hungry packages.  The led to the dual core (now quad and eight core) systems. The path will be the same for GPUs - smaller and less power hungry, integrated together.

CrossFire (Radeon) and SLI (GeForce) are solutions for combining multiple GPUs to share the work load when rendering a 3D scene.  The technology is fundamentally simple. Each GPU fully renders the parts of the screen for which it is responsible (be it a whole frame in AFR, the top or bottom half of a screen, or alternating tiles). These results are then combined and output to the screen. The advantages are typically faster rendering at high resolutions, improved anti-aliasing, or an increase in the minimum frame rates in games (See Tom’s Hardware for details)

While these solutions are viable for the games and CAD software that supports them,  they do not scale linearly beyond two GPUs. AMD is supposedly reportedly working on direct GPU to GPU communication hardware in the new multi-GPU solution known as R700.  But how that will work or scale, as well as whether it will include FireGL accelerators, is not yet known.

There are several other interesting solutions in both hardware and software.

On the hardware side of things, LucidLogix Technologies just announced development of a chip that directs portions of a 3D rendering task to particular GPUs that have spare cycles.  What makes this interesting is that you should achieve near-linear performance increases as you add more GPUs.  The pre-processing chip will work with both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Several smaller, lower-power, lower-performance GPUs may end up providing bigger bang for the buck then larger, energy hungry GPUs

For OpenGL visualization software, Equalizer offers an API for parallel rendering techniques. With this toolkit, one or more OpenGL rendering threads execute in parallel to the application thread, providing scalable performance for OpenGL-based rendering on multicore architectures.

Regardless of the the particular solution, multi-GPUs is certainly the wave of the future for professional 3D rendering. 

Lenovo announces new ThinkPads with Display Port

Due in August, the newly announced T Series line of Thinkpads will add support for Display Port and dynamically switching from the discreet GPU to the integrated GPU without rebooting (saving battery life). The new 15.4-inch W500 ($1,999 ) will be the first in a line of mobile workstations offering ATI Mobility FireGL graphics and Display Port, as well as dynamic GPU-to-integrated graphics switching.  The new laptops are newsworthy for two reasons: 1)  Display Port is definitely becoming a standard in the world of computer graphics and displays; 2) high performance OpenGL graphics on a ThinkPad - finally.

What does dual-link DVI actually mean?

As I’ve been searching around for information on the rate of adoption of DisplayPort (for an upcoming post), I’ve come across a lot of confusion on message boards where people think “dual link” DVI means using both of the DVI ports on your FireGL graphics card to drive one or two monitors. The name dual link, while technically accurate, is a misnomer for many consumers.

So what does dual link actually mean?  “Dual Link” DVI use two TMDS digital signal transmitters and 8 wires to send data, while “single link” uses one TMDS digital signal transmitter and 4 wires. The Dual link DVI effectively doubles the power of transmission and provides an increase of refresh rates and signal quality.  Specifically a DVI single link 60-Hz LCD can display a resolution of 1920 x 1200, while a DVI dual link 60-Hz LCD can display a resolution of 2560 x 1600.

If you look at the plug-ends of a single “dual link” cable, you see it actually has more pins packed in than standard single link DVI cables (18 vs 24 pins). In this case, more pins and wires in the cable translates to more bandwidth. Where this becomes slightly confusing is that on most of the current FireGL accelerators you will see two Dual Link DVI outputs. This means you can drive two high resolutions monitors, each up to 2560 x 1600.