Next-generation UDI display interface spotted at IDF

A cable designed to provide a high definition video connection from a computer to a display is being shown at Intel's Developer Forum, and both Apple and Intel are members of the consortium developing the technology behind it.

Announced last Dec. as the unified display interface (UDI), the technology used in the cable is targeted to become the new display interface for desktop PCs, workstations, notebook PCs and PC monitors, replacing the aging VGA analog standard and providing guidelines to ensure compatibility with today's DVI standard.

According to a spokesperson at conference, the connector doesn't carry audio in the way that a HD connector to a television set would, because the computer will deal with the audio side.

In a previous statement released by the UDI Special Interest Group, a consortium involved in the ongoing development and refinement of the specification, UDI will be fully compatible with HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface), the standard digital interface for High Definition TVs (HDTVs) and advanced CE displays. It will also be able to use High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) technology widely deployed in HDMI-compatible products today.

As a result, computers with UDI connectors will be able to plug into monitors and HDMI-equipped display devices including HDTVs with full content-use rights management and high-definition video compatibility.

UDI on the left HDMI on the right (Photo Credit: TrustedReviews)

There remains some debate over what new benefits UDI will ultimately bring consumer, as it doesn't seem to offer much over the already established DVI and HDMI standards. However, it should benefit manufacturers, who currently have to pay a hefty licence fee in order to use HDMI. The annual licence fee of $15,000 is reportedly augmented by a royalty fee for every device that incorporates the interface.

The UDI Special Interest Group, which includes Apple, Intel, LG, Samsung, NVIDIA and Foxconn among others, has said it plans to wrap up version 1.0 of the UDI specification in second quarter of 2006. It's assumed that both Macs and PCs will begin to adopt the interface soon thereafter.

Follow AppleInsider on Google News

17 Comments

ctachme

said about 18 years ago

As we move into these high-bandwidth technologies (UDI is supposed to start at 16Gb/s), I don't see why fiber isn't used over copper. I'd always thought that fiber was the next step, with much higher theoretical bandwidths and much greater physical ranges. Why then, is UDI copper instead of fiber? It's not like fiber is too difficult or expensive for use in consumor technologies... optical is currenty used for digital audio.

robin hood

said about 18 years ago

First of all, I am not an expert on this subject, so please do correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe that copper is actually cheaper for these kinds of devices, offers more than enough bandwidth (we don't need 100 gigabits to power a display, etc), and one of the main advantages of fibre: you can have very long cables, isn't really very relevant, because monitor cables are unlikely to be a mile long.

jeffdm

said about 18 years ago

Quote:

Originally posted by ctachme
As we move into these high-bandwidth technologies (UDI is supposed to start at 16Gb/s), I don't see why fiber isn't used over copper. I'd always thought that fiber was the next step, with much higher theoretical bandwidths and much greater physical ranges. Why then, is UDI copper instead of fiber? It's not like fiber is too difficult or expensive for use in consumor technologies... optical is currenty used for digital audio.

High bandwidth fiber is expensive and is pretty fussy, not to mention fragile. Relatively short 1000bFX cables are something like $80 each and the adapters are more expensive, and only helpful where RFI or long distance is an issue. Good DVI and HDMI cables only run $15-$25, so long as you don't let yourself get robbed by a Monster.

One question I have is what is the UDI licence fee? It does little good to give the HDMI fee and say that UDI is cheaper, I wouldn't think that $15k would be at all an issue to a display manufacturer. That fee is peanuts compared to other necessary investments.

It doesn't seem to solve the cable latching concern that some people have, neither connector seems to have any sort of positive latch or screw, unlike previous designs. Maybe that is a selling point there.

fuyutsuki

said about 18 years ago

Quote:

Originally posted by Robin Hood
Copper...offers more than enough bandwidth (we don't need 100 gigabits to power a display, etc), and one of the main advantages of fibre: you can have very long cables, isn't really very relevant, because monitor cables are unlikely to be a mile long.

When dealing with bigger and BIGGER high definition screens, we're going to need all the bandwidth we can get. The one thing I liked about VGA (which was bad because it was analogue and the cables were fat and hated twisting to reach the screwy little port) was that it stood up for years and clearly had legs when it was first drawn up. I run a 1600x1200 monitor at 85hz on it, which is hardly cutting edge I know but was pretty unbelievable back when they came up with it in the first place, when 640x480 was HIGH res and the world worked at 60hz fixed!

What I'd really like in such a standard is:

1. cheap for all manufacturers to use and convert to
2. carries video and sound (when needed) so you don't need a second type for your tv
3. designed for a good 10+ years of future proofing like VGA so we don't have to switch every 5 years

Optical fibre would be cool for when you have a high performance machine (which is also a noisy hog) and want to use it via a huge display in another room. But I understand the costs and cord flexibility problems.