Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 17-07-18, 01:36 PM
WYP's Avatar
WYP WYP is offline
News Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 15,033
VR's biggest players back 'VirtualLink' connector for next-gen VR headsets

AMD, Nvidia, Valve, Oculus and Microsoft are involved.



Read more about VirtualLink, the single cable connector for next-gen VR headsets.

__________________
_______________________________
Twitter - @WYP_PC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-07-18, 03:41 PM
sedontane sedontane is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 18
Quote:
so data from one portion of a system will need to be routed to another component
Or yknow, the time honored "breakout box".
The point is to simplify the cabling going to the headset, offer a direct drive mode, that connects using USB-C only, and a breakout box that connects to USB-C (for data) AND a DP (for video)

Seems obvious to me, I'm sure they've thought of it.

Laptops, with the tighter integration, will likely support the Direct drive USB-C option, as I think TB3 already support display channels over USB-C right?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-07-18, 04:55 PM
Emu Emu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedontane View Post
Or yknow, the time honored "breakout box".
The point is to simplify the cabling going to the headset, offer a direct drive mode, that connects using USB-C only, and a breakout box that connects to USB-C (for data) AND a DP (for video)

Seems obvious to me, I'm sure they've thought of it.

Laptops, with the tighter integration, will likely support the Direct drive USB-C option, as I think TB3 already support display channels over USB-C right?
The point of the standard is to make breakout boxes irrelevant.

What I would do in this situation is either add a USB3.1 controller to the GPU or have a internal connector on the graphics card that will plug into a motherboard USB3.1 header. Adding the USB3.1 controller would probably easier but would add some extra cost to the GPU. PCIe v4.0 (which the new Vega cards apparently support) would help alleviate the extra data transfers required.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18-07-18, 03:31 AM
Kleptobot's Avatar
Kleptobot Kleptobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu View Post
The point of the standard is to make breakout boxes irrelevant.

What I would do in this situation is either add a USB3.1 controller to the GPU or have a internal connector on the graphics card that will plug into a motherboard USB3.1 header. Adding the USB3.1 controller would probably easier but would add some extra cost to the GPU. PCIe v4.0 (which the new Vega cards apparently support) would help alleviate the extra data transfers required.
The additional cost of a usb controller on the GPU is not just in the BOM (bill of materials), but additional engineering to make sure the compatibility required by the USB standard is maintained.

This goes along with what is running the controller, does the gpu now need an additional co processor just to run the USB?

Then there are additional support issues, that come along with delivering extra functionality etc. Its not like gpu's are known for having robust drivers anyway

the overall initial outlay costs are pretty significant. I doubt any graphics card manufacturer would be wanting to take all that on, regardless of weather its the most elegant solution
__________________
delided 3570k (watercooled)
hd7970 (watercooled)
8GB Gskill XM
3*140 SR1 Rad
all stuffed in an FD arc midi
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18-07-18, 09:59 AM
demonking's Avatar
demonking demonking is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 788
Am I missing something?
Surely a single connection on the HMD and a split between USB-C and Display port the other end would suffice?
As said previous the cost and time to get GPU manufacturers to integrate this into their GPU's is un-realistic.
Not being funny but I don't blame Nvidia because I have to plug HDMI into the GPU, Power into the wall and USB cable to I/O (for the Hub on board) for my monitor.
though saying that we could push this to Monitors too.... imagine a single cable for a monitor!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-07-18, 11:54 AM
tgrech tgrech is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,012
Yep, a breakout box in itself wouldn't be required. USB Type-Cs lane based system means there would be no active components required; A passive breakout cable or small connector would more than suffice. Physically it could essentially be a Type-C to twin Type-C cable(One for the motherboard(USB/Power) and one for the GPU if separate), combining the required individual lanes of each connector into one as required(IE No lanes themselves mix, only the collection of them).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.