DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 for USB-C devices allows for 16K display resolutions

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2020
The Video Electronics Standards Association has released a new specification that opens the door for future USB-C devices to support DisplayPort 2.0, and ultra-high resolution displays.

DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 brings a number of upgrades to USB4, which could arrive on Macs in 2020 or 2021.
DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 brings a number of upgrades to the USB4 protocol.


Originally announced in June 2019, DisplayPort 2.0 supports resolutions up to 16K, higher refresh rates, HDR support at higher resolutions, and improvements to multi-display support and augmented and virtual reality displays. On Wednesday, VESA released the specification for DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0, which will allow future USB4 and USB Type-C to take full advantage of those improvements.

"VESA's updated DisplayPort Alt Mode spec includes a number of under-the-hood developments-- including updates to interface discovery and configuration as well as power management-- to ensure seamless integration with the USB4 specification," said Craig Wiley, a VESA board member and DisplayPort Alt Mode sub-group leader.

The DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 now allows USB Type-C devices to deliver single-connector docking solutions for a range of devices with the 80 Gbps of video bandwidth and other improvements introduced with DisplayPort 2.0.

USB4, which Apple will likely adopt in future Mac devices, is a convergence of the Thunderbolt and USB protocols. When it's released, it should offer Thunderbolt on a royalty-free basis, which could pave the way for more and cheaper Thunderbolt accessories to hit the market.

The first of USB4 devices should arrive in late 2020. VESA said that it expects the initial rollout of DisplayPort Alt Mode 2.0 to occur sometime in 2021.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    donjuandonjuan Posts: 61member
    TB gear has always been too expensive. 
    dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    tommy65tommy65 Posts: 56member
    So what does this mean resolution wise moving pixels around the clock. 
    Setup with one screen:
    16K or 15,360 x 8,460 resolution HDR 60Hz up to 30 bits per pixel.
    Setup with two screens:
    8K or 7,680 x 4,320 resolution HDR 120Hz up to 30 bits per pixel. DSC-required though. 
    edited April 2020
  • Reply 3 of 9
    M68000M68000 Posts: 368member
    I’m not up on usb4 specs,  just hope it does not mean another new connector to deal with,  we barely have usb-c in use relative to all equipment in use
    doggonewatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 9
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,056member
    M68000 said:
    I’m not up on usb4 specs,  just hope it does not mean another new connector to deal with,  we barely have usb-c in use relative to all equipment in use
    It's still the same. Same interface. No changes needed.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 9
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,335member
    donjuan said:
    TB gear has always been too expensive. 
    This kinda thing is part of the reason. No one* needs a 16k display, but the spec-whores will moan until the connector supports it, even if no one actually uses it. Then everyone will have to pay the R&D costs for something they don't need. Apple will (eventually) add it to the MacBooks partly to justification the price. Also the cost of the TB chipsets is part of the problem, there aren't really any TB > USB 3 (or x interface) chips, and so you have to go TB > PCI-E >USB 3 (or x). Which makes it expensive. Hell until a few years ago most people were still on VGA.

    I was looking at an external drive a while back, and the USB 3 ones were literally half the price of the TB ones. I think eventually TB will be displaced by USB, which is a shame as TB is a better tech.

    Edit: USB 4 basically IS Thunderbolt. Right.

    *ok, maybe some top-end pros
    edited April 2020
  • Reply 6 of 9
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,335member
    Also I have no idea who is running the marketing department at the USB or DisplayPort consortiums, but they don't half know how to create consumer confusion. They recently renamed the much clearer names *twice* to a ridiculously unclear scheme:
    USB 3.2 Gen 1 using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.0, then USB 3.1 Gen 1),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2 also using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.1 then USB 3.1 Gen 2),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 over Type C (was USB 3.2) 

    USB 2 can also run over Type-C.

    So most people just say "USB C cable" which in actual fact can be:
    USB A (2.0) to USB C,
    USB A 3.1 (or sorry, USB 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C, 
    USB B (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C,
    USB C to microUSB (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2),
    USB C to lightning,
    USB C to USB C,  
    Or most of the above with just the power pins connected.
    It's a real mess.
    caladanianStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 9
    doggonedoggone Posts: 294member
    elijahg said:
    Also I have no idea who is running the marketing department at the USB or DisplayPort consortiums, but they don't half know how to create consumer confusion. They recently renamed the much clearer names *twice* to a ridiculously unclear scheme:
    USB 3.2 Gen 1 using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.0, then USB 3.1 Gen 1),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2 also using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.1 then USB 3.1 Gen 2),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 over Type C (was USB 3.2) 

    USB 2 can also run over Type-C.

    So most people just say "USB C cable" which in actual fact can be:
    USB A (2.0) to USB C,
    USB A 3.1 (or sorry, USB 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C, 
    USB B (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C,
    USB C to microUSB (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2),
    USB C to lightning,
    USB C to USB C,  
    Or most of the above with just the power pins connected.
    It's a real mess.
    Only USB C to USB C is a true USB C cable.  The rest are just adaptor cables to allow connectivity to legacy ports. 
    Agree on the nomenclature clutter, but probably reflects updates in the specifications. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 9
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,335member
    doggone said:
    elijahg said:
    Also I have no idea who is running the marketing department at the USB or DisplayPort consortiums, but they don't half know how to create consumer confusion. They recently renamed the much clearer names *twice* to a ridiculously unclear scheme:
    USB 3.2 Gen 1 using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.0, then USB 3.1 Gen 1),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2 also using USB 2.0 style connectors (was USB 3.1 then USB 3.1 Gen 2),
    USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 over Type C (was USB 3.2) 

    USB 2 can also run over Type-C.

    So most people just say "USB C cable" which in actual fact can be:
    USB A (2.0) to USB C,
    USB A 3.1 (or sorry, USB 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C, 
    USB B (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2) to USB C,
    USB C to microUSB (2.0 or 3.2 Gen 1 or Gen 2),
    USB C to lightning,
    USB C to USB C,  
    Or most of the above with just the power pins connected.
    It's a real mess.
    Only USB C to USB C is a true USB C cable.  The rest are just adaptor cables to allow connectivity to legacy ports. 
    Agree on the nomenclature clutter, but probably reflects updates in the specifications. 
    I agree, but doesn't stop consumers calling them by the only keyword that sticks, namely "USB-C". Bit like how Lightning cables are called "iPhone cables". The renaming didn't actually reflect updates, the old specs haven't changed. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 9
    M68000 said:
    I’m not up on usb4 specs,  just hope it does not mean another new connector to deal with,  we barely have usb-c in use relative to all equipment in use
    Hopefully they'll make it smaller than micro-usb, and able to insert it one way.  With USB-C, I miss the frustration of getting it wrong 95% of the time on the first attempt.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.