2 ms·
It sounds like it might be more about "the market will pay more for the packet-based approach, and we shall charge what the market will bear"
by refulgentis 3y ago
It sounds like it might be more about "the market will pay more for the packet-based approach, and we shall charge what the market will bear"
- tverbeure 3y agoSpeaking about 'packet-based approach', the way it's presented in the popular press as if it's similar to Ethernet, is a pretty gross distortion, the impact of which is not nearly as much as people seem to think it is. You can check that there in this presentation (https://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ICCE-Presentation-on-VESA-DisplayPort.pdf https://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ICCE-Present...), page 32 and 33. The majority of DP traffic is still brute force video data, interspersed with heavily packetized secondary data. Over the years, I've spent many hours wading through DisplayPort data debug traces, and I've always wondered what people were smoking when they called it 'packetized like Ethernet'. It's just not true. (And FWIW: even old HDMI can transport secondary data packets just the way you can with DP. It's how audio-over-HDMI is done...)
- autoexecbat 3y agoPerhaps there is just more scale for HDMI making it easier to recoup r&d for new components that implement it