This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Not really that impressive since it seems to be about four times as wide as USB-C
Loved automobiles with 4 wheels? Chinese cars have 13! In your face suckers!
Why not use the already open displayPort and make it better.
noo we need yet another standard!
This was exactly what I wanted to post... 😅
Lock-in.
Is it an open standard?
To quote the article:
a Type-B that seems to have a proprietary connector and a Type-C that is compatible with the USB-C standard.
So its half proprietary. No thanks!
Most important question
Today I learned DidplayPort 2.1 can carry 240W.
That's a lot of power! Are there even any devices that use this?
PCs can use >1KW.
I don't know why you'd power a PC over DisplayPort though. New 8k monitors do go up to 190W, so we could exceed 240W if we try hard enough.
A full PC, no, but a set top box definitely yes. And a set top box is plenty of computing power for a thin client, think workstations for accountants.
So if you have a beefy psu you should be able to power your monitor off tbe DP?
Or does carrying power limit data throughput?
The way it works for power over Ethernet — and I assume USB power delivery must work the same way — is that it does not reduce bandwidth because they run the power and the signal over the same wires at the same time.
There is a a power injector at one end and a filter at the other end that separate out the high-frequency signal and the DC (no-frequency) power into different wires.
This is essentially the same thing as they’re already doing for multi-frequency stacking on those same wires (and on fiber) to get the crazy bandwidth in the first place. DC power is just one more low (very very low) frequency running on the same stack.
It might? I think USB uses data lanes for power delivery above some point, and I wouldn't be surprised if DP does the same.
Hi! I actually work at a major electrical connector company, so maybe I can shed some light on this.
I have no idea.
I used to work with electrical engineers, and whenever I asked about details, they'd shrug and say, "black magic?" Checks out.
Based on this pin configuration, there's only two dedicated power pins, which isn't very good for large wattages. The rest are twinax signal pairs separated by ground to reduce crosstalk.
Usually when connectors are designed for power delivery, they'll use bigger contacts to reduce the contact resistance (signal contacts tend to be small so you can fit more of them in the same space). I'm guessing the original DP connector form factor wasn't made with such high power in mind, so it would make a lot of sense to use the spare signal pins for power delivery in this case. Running too much power through too few small pins can damage the contacts, by either by instant-welding the contact surfaces or by overheating the connector (see NVIDIA GPUs) ((also high voltages can cause arcing, which even in the best case will seriously degrade any connector)).
Take all of this with a huge grain of salt cause I just learned this stuff like a month ago, and my department has nothing to do with any of it. Just though someone might find it interesting.
Imagine putting out a new high bandwidth cable standard in 2025 based on copper.
The sooner display and networking move to SFP, the better.
SFP? You mean the every device has slots to plug in different transceiver modules? I guess that would make it more future proof, but I think that will raise the cost, and might confuse ordinary people.
You have to think about the slot-transceiver compatibility and transceiver-medium compatibility then. Hmm... but I guess that would make it more transparent what is going on than having those chips embedded inside the cables, but not sure if we can leave them out, and require the end users to take care of thinking of all these compatibilities themselves or risk fire hazards.
This must be for commercial displays where it is beneficial for installation to have power and data over a single cable.
I can't think why I would want power delivery to my PC monitor over the display cable. It would just put extra thermal load on the GPU.
I think it's aimed at TVs in general, not computer monitors. Many people mount their TVs to the wall, and having a single cable to run hidden in the wall would be awesome.
Running that much power next to a data line sounds like a terrible idea for signal integrity, especially if something shorts to said data lines. It just sounds sketchy or filled with so many asterisks that it's functional impossible to reach their claimed throughput.
See, IDK anything about data and power and cables but I dislike the vibe when I dock my laptop with that itty bitty USB-C connector that does power and 2x monitors and networking and peripherals.
I did buy the bonkers expensive proper cable from lenovo, and it does generally just work, but maybe once every few weeks I have to unplug & re-plug.
More power and more data through the same cable just seems daft.
It's likely dc current which without the alternating magnetic fields will not degrade the signal as bad. But I whole heartedly agree with you on power delivery. What could possibly need/use that much power‽
its super nice to plug a laptop into a screen and have the cable double as a charging cable for the laptop
Yeah, considering the recent VGA power connectors problems, what could possibly go wrong?
wHy Is mY tV sMoKiNg?!?42??
