Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They already do have video over optical.
http://www.dvigear.com/cables-dp-fo.html
It's really expensive though so I don't see it taking over copper.
Optical would be way too expensive. You could add what, 500$+ to the card and monitor each not to mention the other downsides.
Optical monitor cables are expensive now, but ISTM that the expense is in the niche market and the fact that there are converters at either end. Fibre cable itself is very cheap, and optical NICs are nothing new. Apply economies of scale and the cost of the cable in its current form should come right down. Give the PC an optical out and the monitor an optical in and you should be laughing. Except it hasn't happened, so there must be a good reason, right?
I think the future belongs to "wireless" technologies because A) it sounds good to general populace (look ma, no wires) because nobody likes wires B) it is easy to market C) I would love to bybass drilling walls/windows/floors to take my PC to another room in order to avoid noise (it is so *very* quiet around where I live, and any noise is very easy to hear). Oh the never ending frustration until I found 4k/60Hz 5m (16 ft.) displayport cable which worked reliably (or for that matter USB 3.0 cable) because my pc is 5m away from my desk and I would love to get it farther but displayport gets very "snowflaky" over long distances.
Optical monitor cables are expensive now, but ISTM that the expense is in the niche market and the fact that there are converters at either end. Fibre cable itself is very cheap, and optical NICs are nothing new. Apply economies of scale and the cost of the cable in its current form should come right down. Give the PC an optical out and the monitor an optical in and you should be laughing. Except it hasn't happened, so there must be a good reason, right?
As I understand it, fibre cable bandwidth is affected by the length of the cable due to dispersion and attenuation. If you know you've got a short cable, you can use more bandwidth. Remember that standard fibre is expecting to operate at over 1 km. But if you have a length limit of 10m then you can push petabits.
A dual 10Gbit fiber NIC cost ~1000$ with all you need and its not because its a low volume product.
But is it a high volume product? Or is it stuck in the netherworld between niche and mass market? I'm completely blanking on sales figures, but I do note that per port pricing is coming down rapidly. If you start banging out tens and hundreds of millions of these things - every motherboard, every video card, every monitor - economies of scale kick in and the price drops precipitously. Remember how expensive gigabit networking used to be? Now it's the home standard. 10G will follow.
We already have a standard for fibre in TOSLink, but the bandwidth for that is only 125 Mb/s, so the start is there.
Even 10Gbit copper is so expensive still that 2.5 and 5Gbit standards have been created.
I figured by now the interconnects in a motherboard would be optical considering the speed increases and since it such short distances the cost would not be as high as an external cable.
Hard to bend? Do you mean not bendable? No one should be bending any fiber unless you want a dead cable.I think people are too focused on Fiber networks, for data center use, you don't want thick cables that are hard to bend, so you'll see dual port connections (2 cables) for a monitor cable, you can easily stick 4-8 cables in a bunch, and still still probably get enough flexibility for use, though I don't think there is a need for it, since 99% of monitor cables are short, and can carry enough bandwidth for what we are using.
I think people are too focused on Fiber networks, for data center use, you don't want thick cables that are hard to bend, so you'll see dual port connections (2 cables) for a monitor cable, you can easily stick 4-8 cables in a bunch, and still still probably get enough flexibility for use, though I don't think there is a need for it, since 99% of monitor cables are short, and can carry enough bandwidth for what we are using.
Hard to bend? Do you mean not bendable? No one should be bending any fiber unless you want a dead cable.
True but i didn't even see that damn that's crazy.Tell that to Samsung? Their new Premium line of QLED sets (and maybe non QLED too?) which have that breakout box, will now be connected to the TV via a --seemingly, by the looks-- single fiber cable. And on top of that, check out the bend they demonstrate...
"All of the Q sets use Samsung's One Connect box to house inputs, which, new for 2017, connects to the TV via a 5 meter fiber-optic umbilical that's nearly invisible. A 15-meter option will also be available. The One Connect box can also blast out IR commands to control cable boxes and other devices, to more easily stow your components inside a cabinet."
Something I'll be the first to admit, though... This is CES, this is a product demonstration, and no doubt a prototype.
That all means that what is shown is possibly just a mockup and non-functional, and/or not representative of what will come to market.
(I was only linked that image and text, and so I don't know what the original article stated on the tech...)
Hard to bend? Do you mean not bendable? No one should be bending any fiber unless you want a dead cable.
Tell that to Samsung? Their new Premium line of QLED sets (and maybe non QLED too?) which have that breakout box, will now be connected to the TV via a --seemingly, by the looks-- single fiber cable. And on top of that, check out the bend they demonstrate...
"All of the Q sets use Samsung's One Connect box to house inputs, which, new for 2017, connects to the TV via a 5 meter fiber-optic umbilical that's nearly invisible. A 15-meter option will also be available. The One Connect box can also blast out IR commands to control cable boxes and other devices, to more easily stow your components inside a cabinet."
Something I'll be the first to admit, though... This is CES, this is a product demonstration, and no doubt a prototype.
That all means that what is shown is possibly just a mockup and non-functional, and/or not representative of what will come to market.
(I was only linked that image and text, and so I don't know what the original article stated on the tech...)
Slight curving yes. Straight bends no. Not at our facility.Umm, not sure what you're talking about I'd send you a picture of our lab, but I'm sure I'd be breaking NDA
I'm no talking about sharp 90 degree bends, just bending in general.
Expensive cables will give you no greater benefit over a long run. This is the reality with high bandwidth over copper. You simply need to move your video source closer to the display.Something needs to be done about DP and HDMI cable lengths. I have had serious issues trying to get 4K 4:4:4 running with my TV at 7+ meters lengths, even High Speed active cables have been unable to do it, either by not showing 4:4:4 option at all, flickering and even dropping refresh rates at lower resolutions. I probably have to buy some expensive cable to be able to do this. DP is generally even worse when it comes to cable length.
TOSLINK is 34 years old and has a maximum bandwidth of 125 Mbps. 4K requires 160 times that amount.To everyone saying that Optical automatically increases cost dramatically in Devices?
Remember: TOSLINK is a thing and it's on 10$ cards anymore.
Sure it is, but it's optical and a standard. Saying to converting to optical will be price prohibitive is not borne out by the industry.
Would it be cheap immediately? No. But neither were DVI Monitors 20 years ago.
Implementation, as it becomes common, would become cheap. (As long as Apple or Sony isn't the one driving it.)
Take a look on how long it took for 100mbit, 1gbit and 10gbit Ethernet to come down in price.