Why don't traditional monitors use USB?

[Ika]

Obviously not for power, but for data it seems like it'd be reasonable. It'd solve a lot of compatibility issues between old and new machines, too. Is it a bandwidth issue or something?

 

[Sp12]

Obviously not for power, but for data it seems like it'd be reasonable. It'd solve a lot of compatibility issues between old and new machines, too. Is it a bandwidth issue or something?

USB is capable of .06 gigabytes a second for 2.0, .5 for 3.0.

Displayport does 2.16 gigabytes a second. 360x the bandwidth of USB 2.0. It also has an extra .09 GB/s channel for USB/Touchscreen/ethernet connectivity.

 

[blanketyblank]

I've seen USB to video adapters that can do up to 1920 x 1200 at 16bit and 1680 x 1050 at 32 bit so it should be possible. I think part of the problem is current mobos won't support USB video out by default so you have to actually install the drivers/software in windows for it to begin working. Not sure if there are any other problems as well since I've never tried using one.

 

[v8envy]

Those monitors aren't receiving uncompressed 1920x1200x16 bit video over USB. Essentially they are a RDP client built into the adapter, with a software driver. Try running a game at 60hz or view a full screen 1080p video on a usb video adapter, you'll quickly see where the problems are. Light desktop usage (hardware cursor support, polling at 10-20 hz or so and sending the differences from last frame) is just peachy though.

 

[lopri]

What has been mentioned above, plus USB = terrible latency for real-time video

 

[Borealis7]

oh? like this?

http://www.techpowerup.com/123529/Samsung_Develops_USB-Powered_18.5-inch_Display.html