[Solved] What is the mini DisplayPort spec on the Pro?
- Thread starter Nuspieds
- Start date
OP
Nuspieds
Active Member
Unfortunately, not likely (scroll down to the Display and Audio Features Comparison section)...
Quick Reference Guide to 3rd Generation Intel® Core? Processor Graphics (formerly codenamed Ivy Bridge) | Intel® Developer Zone
Quick Reference Guide to 3rd Generation Intel® Core? Processor Graphics (formerly codenamed Ivy Bridge) | Intel® Developer Zone
J515OP
Super Moderator
Still a chance it isn't listed because it isn't an activated spec vs. simply not possible. Maybe something like this will activate it with new drivers? Wishful thinking but you never know.
http://www.surfaceforums.net/forum/...graphics-driver-way-intel-week.html#post23614
http://www.surfaceforums.net/forum/...graphics-driver-way-intel-week.html#post23614
OP
Nuspieds
Active Member
No, that's not wishful thinking, that's grabbing at straws! :LOL:
I wish I still had your optimism, but this past weekend was when I officially gave up all hope.
I don't understand how MS could shortchange the Surface Pro with regards to multi-monitor support--unless their rationale was to support it via USB. I haven't tried it yet and my adapter is supposed to arrive today, but I can't see video via USB as being very efficient. Furthermore, I'm concerned with how it will tax the CPU.
Anyway, I'll see for myself how well it performs but I definitely am not keen on having my USB hub-connected devices share bandwidth with video. But, maybe USB 3 is all that, so I might be worrying for nothing; we'll see. Overall, though, I just think that since the Surface Pro is a tablet PC, some people will use it to replace their laptops/desktops, which will have a multi-monitor configuration. Thus, the Surface Pro should have had true multi-monitor support out-of-the-box.
But, I confess, there is a little--just a little, though!--bit of optimism still left in me, but I'm counting on the MST hubs that are supposed to come out this year. If those still require a DP 1.2 input, then we'd still be out of luck, but if not, then that might just be the ticket! However, it seems those things are far away from being released to market.
Ugh, what a bummer. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens in 1st generation devices. With a real docking station driving multiple monitors the SP could have been so much more!
I will tell you though that USB3 does drive monitors reasonably well. You may have seen my posts that state that I've been running two 1920x1200 monitors via a Targus docking station for the last few weeks. It works fine for my office computer, even for light video watching. There are occasional artifacts which are not great, but I'm pretty picky about my displays and I'm reasonably happy. I was really hoping to eventually move to DisplayPort though.
I will tell you though that USB3 does drive monitors reasonably well. You may have seen my posts that state that I've been running two 1920x1200 monitors via a Targus docking station for the last few weeks. It works fine for my office computer, even for light video watching. There are occasional artifacts which are not great, but I'm pretty picky about my displays and I'm reasonably happy. I was really hoping to eventually move to DisplayPort though.
OP
Nuspieds
Active Member
So I just got the adapter and it was totally plug-and-play and, so far, it's all good.
Performance seems fine and I'm not noticing any issues. It's great to have my multi-monitor functionality back again!
I, too, am picky about my displays and that's why I was so worried about any potential technical or performance issues. For now, all works well, so let's hope that things stay that way!
Performance seems fine and I'm not noticing any issues. It's great to have my multi-monitor functionality back again!
I, too, am picky about my displays and that's why I was so worried about any potential technical or performance issues. For now, all works well, so let's hope that things stay that way!
J515OP
Super Moderator
I am glad you both have USB 3.0 multi monitor working but that is not the way it should be. What is the point of using DisplayPort in this case? What is Intel thinking providing this in their integrated graphics at this point in the game? Bad on MS to choose this chip and graphics combo but I can see why they did (not much other choice for Intel chips to fit this hardware design).
Terrible on Intel to not have better integrated options with current standards particularly when they are pushing Thunderbolt that incorporates even a higher level of functionality than DisplayPort. The only thing I can conclude is that not enough people are using these types of connections to make it important. Of course that is a chicken and egg problem if people don't have hardware up to the standard of course they aren't going to use it.
What about this? It seems that this spits DisplayPort to two monitors if I am reading it correctly. http://www.surfaceforums.net/forum/...-hdmi-adaptor-zotac-works-well.html#post23103
OP
Nuspieds
Active Member
I certainly believe that more than enough people are multi-monitoring these days. I see them in office cubes much more often than I ever have in the past. Furthermore, just look to Windows 8 itself: It's multi-monitor support is far superior to Windows 7, so that tells me that MS also sees it as an important environment configuration. And that's all the more reason why I am perplexed that the Surface Pro, which runs Win 8, does not do equal justice regarding multi-monitor support by taking advantage of and implementing functionality natively provided by Windows 8.
Regarding the HDMI output, I had originally looked into all those other types of adapters when trying to find a workaround. However, as I previously indicated, displays are very important to me and I wasn't willing to give up my 2560x1600 resolution on my external monitors, which is what I had been using all along on my old laptop, prior to replacing it with my Surface Pro. The Zotac, for example, does maximum 1920x1200. Although that's HD and is still great resolution, what's more important to me is to maintain using 2560x1600.
One can only guess why Microsoft/Intel chose the chips they did. Obviously docking wasn't terribly high on the priority list, or else they would have released an official docking station at launch, or at least had one on the roadmap. Of the people who use multiple monitors and don't dock, I would wager the vast majority only connect a single monitor, as it has never been practical to connect more than that. Perhaps MS didn't really have any other choice in a chipset, and during the development period there was pretty much nothing DP 1.2 compatible on the market. It's only today that we are starting to see the very first monitors available, and stand-alone hubs are still a pipe-dream.
The HDMI adaptor may work, but it functions by tricking the computer into thinking two monitors are one large one which is not quite the same as driving two monitors separately.
OP
Nuspieds
Active Member
But then again, DP 1.2 has been approved since end of 2009. Furthermore, it is like USB 3.0 in that it is backward compatible.
However, what I can't understand is that they knew the unit was only going to have one video out and, for some time now, it was known that DP 1.2 would support daisy chaining. Thus, if you're going to release to market a product that doesn't have a docking station and only has one video out port, then at least supply the video out port that supports multi-monitors. I can only hope that there is some real logical rationale for not doing it.
I saw a couple of videos from those trade shows regarding the MST hubs and clearly there were still some design work to do before it is ready for the consumer market.
Similar threads
