VR's biggest players back 'VirtualLink' connector for next-gen VR headsets

[WYP]

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



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

[sedontane]

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?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by sedontane

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.

[Kleptobot]

Originally Posted by Emu

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

[demonking]

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!

[tgrech]

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).