DisplayLink to Adopt USB 3.0

[btarunr]

DisplayLink, the company behind USB-based display controllers has disclosed plans to release a display chip during the upcoming CES event next month, that runs on USB 3.0 SuperSpeed interface. The new chip will make use of the increased bandwidth (up to 4.8 Gbps vs. 480 Mbps of USB 2.0), to transmit higher-resolution videos. The current USB 2.0 based DisplayLink chips are able to transmit display of 3D games at 60 fps and HD video at 26~27 fps. The new USB 3.0 based chip will be able to do the same faster, without any flickering, said Dennis Crespo, executive vice-president of marketing and business development at DisplayLink. The DisplayLink technology involves using the system's graphics hardware to drive multiple display-heads, by transmitting display across USB.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

hmm sounds intresting i wonder if eventually USB will become the ubiquitous standard

image controllers hardware peripherals displays all using the same interface eventually that might be the case with things like Displaylink using the interface although it wont happen anytime soon.

still its a decent update USB 3 should allow for smooth video compared to USB 2

 

[hat]

I don't think it can be done yet. DVI bandwidth is ~4GB/s... USB is 4.8Gb/s. USB 3.0 is pretty fast but DVI is almost 4x faster. That and USB tends to work in bursts... it will spike up to full usage then drop, then spike again. DVI is consistently ~4GB/s.

 

[Mussels]

I don't think it can be done yet. DVI bandwidth is ~4GB/s... USB is 4.8Gb/s. USB 3.0 is pretty fast but DVI is almost 4x faster. That and USB tends to work in bursts... it will spike up to full usage then drop, then spike again. DVI is consistently ~4GB/s.

USB 1.0 and 2.0 did the same as wireless, where they claimed X speed in each direction combined = Y (marketing speed)

so 480Mb/s for USB2.0 was actually 240Mb each way (divide by 8 and you get 30MB/s... the best you ever get from USB 2.0 devices)


so while they claim 4.8Gb/s, odds are very good it will really be 2.4Gb/s each direction.


that said, its exactly what these guys need. USB monitors are weird, but there are many situations where they'd be useful (mostly for business use, where adaptor is cheaper than another video card - assuming the mobo even has spare slots)

 

[hat]

USB 1.0 and 2.0 did the same as wireless, where they claimed X speed in each direction combined = Y (marketing speed)

So my wireless G network is actually 27 one way and 27 down, so the most I'll ever get out of it in one direction (e.g. copying a file from one computer to the other) is 27Mbps?

 

[Mussels]

So my wireless G network is actually 27 one way and 27 down, so the most I'll ever get out of it in one direction (e.g. copying a file from one computer to the other) is 27Mbps?

aka 3.375MB/s yes.

 

[Fourstaff]

I have not come across a USB monitor, are they any good?

 

[Mussels]

I have not come across a USB monitor, are they any good?

these are USB to VGA adaptors.

they do the job, but FPS was lacking. USB 3.0 should remedy that.


edit: since they mention it using the "systems graphics hardware" i wonder if this would work for a third display in eyefinity, instead of needing an active DP to DVI adapator?

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

hmm.. so actual processing is in the card? or is it just some kind of an "extension" where the actual processing comes from the GPU??

 

[Mussels]

hmm.. so actual processing is in the card? or is it just some kind of an "extension" where the actual processing comes from the GPU??

not sure. havent looked into them that much.

 

[TAViX]

The PCI-E 2.0 has a bandwidth of 8GB/s while USB 3.0 has "only" 0.4GB/s ... So no external strong 3D graphic cards any time soon....

 

[Mussels]

The PCI-E 2.0 has a bandwidth of 8GB/s while USB 3.0 has "only" 0.4GB/s ... So no external strong 3D graphic cards any time soon....

we arent talking about external video cards, just external monitors.

Drop the color depth to 24 bit, run at say... 1440x900 and it should be easily doable on USB 3.0 (but it may well be CPU intensive, or have a slight lag)

 

[pr0n Inspector]

USB is host controlled. Sustained high speed transfer will put a hefty load on the CPU.

 

[robodude666]

The PCI-E 2.0 has a bandwidth of 8GB/s while USB 3.0 has "only" 0.4GB/s ... So no external strong 3D graphic cards any time soon....

USB 2.0's "only" .058GB/s bandwidth is more than enough to drive a 1680 x 1050 monitor. I used the eVGA UV Plus+ on my MacBook for a while and can say its a very good option for a quick and dirty additional monitor without having to worry about hardware (video card output) support. Sure, I won't be playing any 3D games on it.. but why would you if you have a dedicated video card already installed? The purpose of DisplayLink's technology is to give additional monitors, for laptops or small computers with limited outputs. As we speak, I am using my iMac 24" w/ an external HP w2408h via native DVI output in addition to a 22" Samsung via an eVGA UV Plus+ and a DoubleSight 7" USB Monitor (also running DisplayLink's technology). Smooth as butter, especially with the latest driver releases.

Looking forward to seeing DisplayLink's technology grow with the addition of USB 3 support. I'd love to see up to 2560 x 1600 support, or multiple monitors via a single USB 3 connection. Sadly, USB 3 ain't coming to the Mac for some time .

-robodude666

P.S. 4.8Gb/s is .6GB/s .

 

[Hayder_Master]

did expect some good USB 3.0 cards like 9600GT or 4670 , not looking for high end but something useful for laptops

 

[Ptep]

So my wireless G network is actually 27 one way and 27 down, so the most I'll ever get out of it in one direction (e.g. copying a file from one computer to the other) is 27Mbps?

Actually no, it can be anything down to half that in one direction due to overheads in wifi frames (Beacon frames for example). Its also worth remembering that wifi is half duplex.

 

[Mussels]

Actually no, it can be anything down to half that in one direction due to overheads in wifi frames (Beacon frames for example). Its also worth remembering that wifi is half duplex.

thats what we were talking about. due to it being half duplex, a 54Mb wifi connection at best, will transfer at 27Mb

 

[Ptep]

thats what we were talking about. due to it being half duplex, a 54Mb wifi connection at best, will transfer at 27Mb

Haha thanks, yes i must have been half a sleep when i posted that, i completely missed the sentence 'USB 1.0 and 2.0 did the same as wireless'