POST A COMMENT

12 Comments

Back to Article

  • MGSsancho - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    Limited application use as there is little hardware acceleration. Depending on the application this may not be an issue such as presentations with little video. However systems with USB3 should be fast enough to drive most applications over this device. Reply
  • Telek - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    I've used the USB2.0 older version with full screen HD video, works fine. Reply
  • MrCromulent - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    The spec sheet lists Mac OS X as supported operating system, although the generic Displaylink USB 3.0 drivers don't support Mac OS yet. Has this changed or did Diamond write a custom driver?

    http://www.diamondmm.com/images/materials/new/vide...
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    I'd be really interested in seeing this tested to make sure it actually works well. USB3 has enough theoretical bandwidth to run a display well; but will it be low enough latency to keep the UI smooth. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    Why not throw in an ethernet port and a few usb ports for peripherals? Then just call it a dock? Reply
  • jibz - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    2048x1152? Why not 1920x1200? Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    It's probably both. 2048 is more pixels and thus is nominally the higher resolution. It never caught on anywhere but several years ago several companies did sell 2048x1152 monitors. Reply
  • knowom - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link

    I blame price fixing and then being phased out for the reason it never had a real chance to catch on. If they offer monitors now with that resolution for $150-$175's I would probably all ready own one by now. Reply
  • stankpuff - Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - link

    I've been running the GWC-branded version of this for several months now. It looks exactly the same as the Diamond one shown above sans the Diamond branding. For those that are wondering, it works great. Any UI on the GWC is smooth, Aero is enabled, and it can even play video. The only problem is that you've got to be a little careful with DisplayLink's drivers. Their summer driver release completely borked the setup (jerky UI, forced Aero off). However, I reverted to an earlier build and everything works fine again. Reply
  • Reflex - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link

    Will they drive two 1920x1200 LCD's? That would be my use case... Reply
  • magreen - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    I have something like this at work, but it's made by Targus. USB3.0, dual head w/ DVI and HDMI output. It can do either 2048x1152 or 1920x1200.

    What I don't understand is how USB3.0, with about 5000 Mbps has the bandwidth to run two monitors. Here's the math for two monitors at 1920x1200 with 32bpp and 60Hz:

    2 * 1920 * 1200 * 4 Bpp * 60 = 1105.9 MB/s

    At 5000 Mbps (with 10/8 encoding), there's about 400 to 500 MB/s of realistic usable bandwidth over USB3.0. How the heck do these things run even one monitor, let alone two?

    Are they just reading data from the computer at 20Hz and storing that data for 3 consecutive cycles of 60Hz each?
    Reply
  • Telek - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    If there was only some way to do basic and fast compression on graphical images :-)

    Not sure if they use it, but something like RLE would be trivial and easy to implement.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now