4 ms·

Hdmi has zero illusions about being ineffective. It was cracked the first day it was released. It's a mechanism to force you to pay a licensing fee to manufact

Hdmi has zero illusions about being ineffective. It was cracked the first day it was released. It's a mechanism to force you to pay a licensing fee to manufacture hdmi devices. It's why display ports are the way to go.

3abiton 3y ago
I never gave display port any attention, what's the appeal? Open-source?
- bluGill 3y ago
  Hdmi without the leagal issuses. There are other differences but the leagal is why it exists.
- preisschild 3y ago
  Its a less confusing standard too. The versions are sane. Also i love that DP-plugs have that latch thing so the cable always stays attached
- weberer 3y ago
  Also higher speeds. HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of 48 Gbit/s. But because of driver shenanigans in the linked article, us pesky computer users are stuck with HDMI 2.0, which has a bandwidth of 18 Gbit/s. The latest version of DisplayPort has a bandwidth of 80 Gbit/s, and you get drivers on day 1.
  - Justsignedup 3y ago
    Thinking about it more, there's no down side to DP. Every card manufacturer should spend an extra $2 and ship with a DP -> HDMI adapter and drop HDMI universally. There's no down side. And that $2 will be well worth the licensing fees they don't have to pay, and the software they don't have to write.
    - account42 3y ago
      An adapter that supports HDMI 2.1 will cost way more than $2 and its price will also need to include the licensing fee so you don't get around that.
      - Justsignedup 3y ago
        Even if it isn't 2.1, the off the shelf adapters will definitely cost, but it is a long-term strategy. If every card supports DP natively and everyone is shipping hdmi 2.0 adapters, monitor manufacturers will be strongly inclined to include a native DP port everywhere, no more HDMI only devices, including potentially TVs. At that point the card manufacturers stop shipping with the dongle.
  - account42 3y ago
    To bad my card can only do DP 1.4a but can theorectically do HDMI 2.1 - but can't under Linux.
kevin_b_er 3y ago
Are you sure you aren't thinking of HDCP? It is separate from HDMI, and DisplayPort does HDCP too.

3abiton 3y ago

I never gave display port any attention, what's the appeal? Open-source?

bluGill 3y ago
Hdmi without the leagal issuses. There are other differences but the leagal is why it exists.
preisschild 3y ago
Its a less confusing standard too. The versions are sane. Also i love that DP-plugs have that latch thing so the cable always stays attached
weberer 3y ago
Also higher speeds. HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of 48 Gbit/s. But because of driver shenanigans in the linked article, us pesky computer users are stuck with HDMI 2.0, which has a bandwidth of 18 Gbit/s. The latest version of DisplayPort has a bandwidth of 80 Gbit/s, and you get drivers on day 1.
- Justsignedup 3y ago
  Thinking about it more, there's no down side to DP. Every card manufacturer should spend an extra $2 and ship with a DP -> HDMI adapter and drop HDMI universally. There's no down side. And that $2 will be well worth the licensing fees they don't have to pay, and the software they don't have to write.
  - account42 3y ago
    An adapter that supports HDMI 2.1 will cost way more than $2 and its price will also need to include the licensing fee so you don't get around that.
    - Justsignedup 3y ago
      Even if it isn't 2.1, the off the shelf adapters will definitely cost, but it is a long-term strategy. If every card supports DP natively and everyone is shipping hdmi 2.0 adapters, monitor manufacturers will be strongly inclined to include a native DP port everywhere, no more HDMI only devices, including potentially TVs. At that point the card manufacturers stop shipping with the dongle.
- account42 3y ago
  To bad my card can only do DP 1.4a but can theorectically do HDMI 2.1 - but can't under Linux.

kevin_b_er 3y ago

Are you sure you aren't thinking of HDCP? It is separate from HDMI, and DisplayPort does HDCP too.