HP's OMEN Transcend 32 Only gets UHBR10 DisplayPort 2.1 Support

[TheLostSwede]

Back in December, details of HP's OMEN Transcend 32 leaked and one of the big reveals was that this upcoming OLED display was going to feature DisplayPort 2.1 support. Now details have emerged via TFTCentral that the Transcend 32 might not be all it was expected to be, as its DP 2.1 port is what can only be referred to as severely limited, since it only supports UHBR10 which equals 40 Gbps worth of bandwidth. Comparing this with the upcoming Gigabyte AORUS FO32U2P which supports UHBR20, you're looking at twice the bandwidth at 80 Gbps. To put this into real world terms, this means that the OMEN Transcend 32 will still require DIsplay Stream Compression enabled to hit its maximum refresh rate of 240 Hz at 4K resolution, as this requires close to 69 Gbps of bandwidth. That said, it's still capable of 144 Hz without DSC, which is a small consolation prize, but it's hardly going to win over potential customers.

The OMEN Transcend 32 does have a few extras though, such as support for VESA AdaptiveSync 240 and ClearMR in addition to AMD's FreeSync Premium Pro. Other niceties include a USB Type-C port with DP Alt mode as well as 140 W USB Power Delivery, a USB Type-C output and KVM functionality. It's also said to feature "OMEN Gear Switch technology" which makes the display act as a network switch and enables files to be dragged and dropped between devices connected to the monitor. HP has as yet to announce pricing and a launch date for the OMEN Transcend 32.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Onasi]

This is impressively wasteful of them. Going to the trouble to implement and certify DP 2.1 only to then stick to the most useless bandwidth level the UHBR provides. Sure, running at 144Hz without DSC is a benefit… to someone, I guess, but seriously, either go full way for the UHBR20 to ensure long-term compatibility (and obviously give an option to turn off DSC when the consumer level cards with a sufficient port arrive) or just do what most others have done and stick with 1.4 and DSC. This half-measure is just stupid.
But I am almost 100% sure that they have done it solely to advertise the screen as having DP 2.1. Most customers are completely unaware of how the standard works and of different UHBR levels. Hell, as recent discussions on this very site show, most ENTHUSIASTS are not aware of them and mostly operate on “2.1 good, 1.4 and DSC bad, why no 2.1”.

 

[Ravenmaster]

Wow... only Gigabyte making their 32" 4K 240hz monitor future proof. Shame on the other manufacturers for cheaping out

 

[TheLostSwede]

This is impressively wasteful of them. Going to the trouble to implement and certify DP 2.1 only to then stick to the most useless bandwidth level the UHBR provides. Sure, running at 144Hz without DSC is a benefit… to someone, I guess, but seriously, either go full way for the UHBR20 to ensure long-term compatibility (and obviously give an option to turn off DSC when the consumer level cards with a sufficient port arrive) or just do what most others have done and stick with 1.4 and DSC. This half-measure is just stupid.
But I am almost 100% sure that they have done it solely to advertise the screen as having DP 2.1. Most customers are completely unaware of how the standard works and of different UHBR levels. Hell, as recent discussions on this very site show, most ENTHUSIASTS are not aware of them and mostly operate on “2.1 good, 1.4 and DSC bad, why no 2.1”.

This is exactly what happened with HDMI though, loads of TVs out there that doesn't support 48 Gbps FRL6, but instead end up at 40 Gbps FRL5. Less of an issue in this case though, as 40 Gbps is still good enough for 120 Hz.

 

[Onasi]

This is exactly what happened with HDMI though, loads of TVs out there that doesn't support 48 Gbps FRL6, but instead end up at 40 Gbps FRL5. Less of an issue in this case though, as 40 Gbps is still good enough for 120 Hz.

Interesting. Was this due to higher licensing fees or was the higher bandwidth ports/cables/scalers just more costly, as is the case with DP?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Interesting. Was this due to higher licensing fees or was the higher bandwidth ports/cables/scalers just more costly, as is the case with DP?

Cost of custom ASICs to drive it I believe.

Here's an example.

Samsung's S95C QD-OLED TVs discovered to feature HDMI 2.1 ports with 40 Gbps bandwidth instead of 48 Gbps

Just like LG with the CX WOLED debacle back in 2020, Samsung sneaked 40 Gbps HDMI 2.1 connectors on the S95C QD-OLED, yet it actually advertised 48 Gbps connectors. This limitation comes from the One Connect box and is not present on the more affordable S90C models that are missing the external box.

www.notebookcheck.net

 

[Onasi]

Cost of custom ASICs to drive it I believe.

Thanks. Seemingly the same story with DP 2.1 at 80Gbps. Industry sources, at least, told tftcentral that scalers and their components become really expensive at that point, developing one in-house is even more expensive and there aren’t really ready-made options galore so far. NV certainly is in no hurry to update their GSync FPGA to 2.1, for example.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Cost of custom ASICs to drive it I believe.

Here's an example.

Samsung's S95C QD-OLED TVs discovered to feature HDMI 2.1 ports with 40 Gbps bandwidth instead of 48 Gbps

Just like LG with the CX WOLED debacle back in 2020, Samsung sneaked 40 Gbps HDMI 2.1 connectors on the S95C QD-OLED, yet it actually advertised 48 Gbps connectors. This limitation comes from the One Connect box and is not present on the more affordable S90C models that are missing the external box.

www.notebookcheck.net

That's just Samsung. They use their own CPU while others mostly use Mediatek Pentonic, not sure we can call it custom, it is a plain SoC, only FW differs for each maker. Not only that Samsung now mish mashes gens of their CPU offering the best one only in certain bleeding edge models... the heck Samsung this year even doesn't disclose either the their entry/mid ranger TV model is Their QD or LG OLED, the model number is same and it could be both.

 

[trsttte]

This is impressively wasteful of them. Going to the trouble to implement and certify DP 2.1 only to then stick to the most useless bandwidth level the UHBR provides.

Not really, it's sad but UHBR10 is still a massive bandwidth increase over DP1.4. Like seriously, it's a jump from ~25.9gbps to ~38.7gbps, HDMI 2.1 only goes to about 42gbps.

higher licensing fees

DisplayPort doesn't have one.

 

[Onasi]

DisplayPort doesn't have one.

I am aware. The question was about HDMI.

Not really, it's sad but UHBR10 is still a massive bandwidth increase over DP1.4. Like seriously, it's a jump from ~25.9gbps to ~38.7gbps, HDMI 2.1 only goes to about 42gbps.

But irrelevant in practice. It’s not enough for any of the higher end stuff coming out. Not for 4K240, not for 1440p360 (and above, considering that we are getting 1440p480), not even for the new e-sports oriented 1080p540.
Sure, you can run 1440p240 at this bandwidth without DSC, but that’s small consolation. And that res-refresh combo, OLED aside, is increasingly pushing into mass market with cheaper models. You sure as hell won’t find ANY type of DP 2.1 on those. In short, UHBR10 is in a no mans land, needed or wanted by no one.
But it IS factually more bandwidth, sure.

 

[dir_d]

I wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

 

[konga]

I wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

Gigabyte has announced a UHBR20 monitor, so either there is indeed a scaler on the market capable of handling that much bandwidth, or Gigabyte is developing their own. I'm guessing it's the former, but it's probably expensive. This is why Gigabyte is offering two versions of the monitor, one with DP 2.1 support and one without it. If you want full-fat DP 2.1, you're gonna have to pay extra for it.

 

[trsttte]

I wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD Vesa dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

Yes

I think the biggest culprit was nvidia cheaping out with the 4000 series, they're the biggest gpu manufacturer, their cards not having DP2.1 means the majority of the market won't have access to it so it's a good excuse for everyone else to also cheap out and drag their feet a bit more. HDMI 2.1 also only started to become frequent when both the 3000 series and new consoles shipped with it, and is still not a given funny enough.

it's probably expensive

It surely will be more expensive than previous solutions with DP1.4 but let's put it in perspective, instead of an hypothetical 5$ maybe it will be an hypothetical 10$. It's a small fortune after thousands of units sure, but it will also be a small fortune on Gigabyte's coffers by being the only ones to go the extra mile.

 

[TheLostSwede]

That's just Samsung. They use their own CPU while others mostly use Mediatek Pentonic, not sure we can call it custom, it is a plain SoC, only FW differs for each maker. Not only that Samsung now mish mashes gens of their CPU offering the best one only in certain bleeding edge models... the heck Samsung this year even doesn't disclose either the their entry/mid ranger TV model is Their QD or LG OLED, the model number is same and it could be both.

LG and Sony had similar issues with earlier 4K 120 Hz input displays though.

I wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

I'm going to update the Gigabyte news post shortly with pricing and some details and you will understand why.

 

[lemonadesoda]

My new Ferrari has 0-60mph in 2.1 seconds tyres. But I won't tell you the engine only does 0-60mph in 5.2 seconds. That's in the small print. Let's just focus on the connection to the road!

 

[Tek-Check]

Here's an example.

Samsung massively disappointed with those premium TVs with 40 Gbps.

Thanks. Seemingly the same story with DP 2.1 at 80Gbps. Industry sources, at least, told tftcentral that scalers and their components become really expensive at that point, developing one in-house is even more expensive and there aren’t really ready-made options galore so far. NV certainly is in no hurry to update their GSync FPGA to 2.1, for example.

Nvidia has not even bothered to release Gsync module to support HDMI 2.1 FRL signal.

That's just Samsung. They use their own CPU while others mostly use Mediatek Pentonic, not sure we can call it custom, it is a plain SoC, only FW differs for each maker. Not only that Samsung now mish mashes gens of their CPU offering the best one only in certain bleeding edge models... the heck Samsung this year even doesn't disclose either the their entry/mid ranger TV model is Their QD or LG OLED, the model number is same and it could be both.

Any company with deliberately obfuscated and omitted information violate EU consumer protection Directive and breach Articles 6 and 7. I hope politicians finally start doing something about it, like they did with USB-C.

Not really, it's sad but UHBR10 is still a massive bandwidth increase over DP1.4. Like seriously, it's a jump from ~25.9gbps to ~38.7gbps, HDMI 2.1 only goes to about 42gbps.

"Massive" is not massive for the needs of 4K/240Hz monitor. Bandwidth increase needs to make sense for specific display. In this case, increase just does not make any sense whatsoever and HP is just playing idiots with consumers. It's nonsense what they have done. Waste of time.

I wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

AMD has nothing to do with the whole DP 2.1 debacle on advanced monitors this year. AMD is the first ever company to offer both 54 Gbps and 80 Gbps ports on RDNA3 cards for client and professional segments. It's the others who are stingy and dragging their feet until Nvidia releases 5000 cards. Sad, but true, apart from Gigagbyte.

LG and Sony had similar issues with earlier 4K 120 Hz input displays though.

Not series 9 from 2019. I have C9 with 48 Gbps ports, their in-house IC with HAWK2 chip. That series was the world's first full speed IC on all four ports.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Not series 9 from 2019. I have C9 with 48 Gbps ports, their in-house IC with HAWK2 chip. That series was the world's first full speed IC on all four ports.

I think that was the only one though, some of their "lesser" models had limitations.

 

[dir_d]

@TheLostSwede I see our update, this is sort of similar to the Geforce Ultimate debacle. $200 for the use of 1x DP 2.1a is over the top, now we know why it has not been used. I understand DSC is not quite as good as native but ill definitely take DSC over a $200 premium.

 

[TheLostSwede]

@TheLostSwede I see our update, this is sort of similar to the Geforce Ultimate debacle. $200 for the use of 1x DP 2.1a is over the top, now we know why it has not been used. I understand DSC is not quite as good as native but ill definitely take DSC over a $200 premium.

It has two DP 2.1 inputs, one full size and one mini DP. So $100 per port...

 

[Tek-Check]

I think that was the only one though, some of their "lesser" models had limitations.

9 series had a hybrid in-house chipset, with three overcklocked TMDS channels feeding the main IC from FRL-TMDS converter chip.
Below, from left to right:
C 8 series - HDMI 2.0b 18 Gbps
C 9 series - FRL input 48 Gbps feeds HAWK2 IC3600 protocol converter, which then feeds the main IC with 3 overclocked data channels ~17.5 Gbps
C X-1 series - FRL protocol all-through - they dropped 8 Gbps to 40 Gbps due to stability and excessive heat. 48 Gbps was not needed anyway.
-------------
C 2-3 series - they were back to 48 Gbps signal (after public tantrum...) despite the fact that it was not necessary for 4K/120 10-bit image
C 4 series - 48 Gbps will be fully utilized for 4K/144Hz 10-bit signal.

 

[trsttte]

It has two DP 2.1 inputs, one full size and one mini DP. So $100 per port...

Ridiculous market segmentation at it's best. Besides the DP 2.1, the USB-C also supports less power (the cheaper model is limited to useless 18W PD while the more expensive has somewhat usefull 65W). On displayspecifications, the cheaper model also mentions HDMI 2.1 FRL 12G which I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's HDMI 2.1 FRL 6 aka 48Gbps.

Why did they bother with DP out though? It's great and I would love if more monitors had one but they're obviously targeting this at gamers prioritizing DP 2.1 for the DP inputs instead of the USB-C and the daisy chain out that would need it a lot more. And how does that DP output work, given it's a lower spec than the inputs, will it work for the USB-C or downgrade the other inputs when used?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Why did they bother with DP out though? It's great and I would love if more monitors had one but they're obviously targeting this at gamers prioritizing DP 2.1 for the DP inputs instead of the USB-C and the daisy chain out that would need it a lot more. And how does that DP output work, given it's a lower spec than the inputs, will it work for the USB-C or downgrade the other inputs when used?

Daisy chaining has been around for a very long time when it comes to DP, but there has always been restrictions as to what you can daisy chain. There's nothing odd going on here, as you could simply attach a second DP 1.4 monitor and it would work just fine, within the limitations of DP 1.4. You might not be able to run the main display at 240 Hz though, but most likely 120-144 Hz would be fine or you enable DSC and both should be able to do 144 Hz.

The USB Type-C is an input, which functions just like a typical DP 1.4 port, handy if you want to hook up your work laptop when doing some work at home.