4 ms·
> seriously one big thing that's a no-no for me is only HDMI1.4 (not HDMI2.0). It means that you can't do 4K@60Hz. You can, using the Thunderbolt 3 port. I run
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> seriously one big thing that's a no-no for me is only HDMI1.4 (not HDMI2.0). It means that you can't do 4K@60Hz.
You can, using the Thunderbolt 3 port. I run my XPS 13 at 4K@60Hz using the mini-DP port, and Thunderbolt 3 is capable of that and more.
- ClassyJacket 9y agoNot to a TV, tho, which makes it a deal breaker for me. They should put a proper HDMI port.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> Not to a TV, tho, which makes it a deal breaker for me. They should put a proper HDMI port. I'd rather have an extra Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port, to be honest. HDMI 2.0 is bigger and clunkier as a port, and Thunderbolt 3 is strictly better as a protocol (we're not even talking about HDMI 2.1). Maybe if you're talking HDMI 2.1, but the protocol can still be carried over a USB-C connector anyway, so keeping the standard connector interface is preferable in my books. My bet is that TVs will soon start to have USB-C ports built-in (with whichever protocols they're willing to support). In the meantime, an adapter will do the trick; it can even live with the TV, since that's not meant to be portable.
- ClassyJacket 9y agoSorry I shouldn't have said port. They should've put in HDMI support. Over the USBC port. I agree that extra ports are superfluous.
- JamesMcMinn 9y agoWell, yes to a TV with a cheap USB-C -> HDMI 2.0 dongle.