{ "numMessagesInTopic": 10, "nextInTime": 926, "senderId": "TN7wTaAymeX4RG1CX2adL3yhckaC4Tznj0vuTueNNwcgCBDGJA2_eOalKIZAlZDejethrcY7C61TDavfeGa5eiUHxUBaKdtJftWDvw8vXg", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: New DisplayPort Standard for PCs, Monitors, TV Displays and Projectors", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... 1024, ... Hi David. It s *probably* in decimal multiples; I don t see why it should be mapped onto powers of two (in the way that memory is, for example).", "msgId": 925, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 914, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
> fluppeteer wrote:1024,
\n>
\n> > --- In IBM_T2X_LCD@yahoogroups.com, "sonar211" <vlado79@r...> wrote:
\n> > > The Main Link bandwidth enables data transfer at up to 10.8
\n> > > Gbits/second using a total of four lanes.
\n> >
\n> > Quick bit of maths, 3840x2400x24x48Hz = 10.6 Gbits/second.
\n> > Coincidence, or DG6? :-)
\n>
\n> Ummm... you used 1000 (base 10 "k"), not 1024 (base 2 "k"). Using
\n
> 3840x2400x24x48Hz = 9.89 Gb/s.Hi David. It's *probably* in decimal multiples; I don't see
\n> [I use 1024 for the rest of this email.]
\n
\n
> to compare. It should be noted that this does _NOT_ include anyI'm hoping that they've given up on trying to make it all look
\n> overhead for sync signals. Assuming that the DG5 uses the same
\n> percentage of sync overhead as the DG3 uses for it's 2x 1920x2400 mode,
\n> 33.32%, the actual bandwidth required from DVI to get 3840x2400x24x48Hz
\n> *(1+0.3332) is 13.18Gb/s.
\n> [This assumption of same overhead appears to be invalid due to the DG5
\n> using 1 dual-link DVI + 1 single link DVI to get 3840x2400x24x48Hz.]
\n
\n
> Yeah, don't you just _love_ to see "new", "future-proof", "industrybarely
\n> standard", "broad application" specifications that can only just
\n
> handle 2 year old technology?At least four years old, allowing for the original Bertha. :-)
\n
\n