4 ms·

I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use

I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which does have enough bandwidth. So until I upgrade both, I'm using HDMI. My computer is not outdated either, there's just nothing to upgrade to. None of Nvidia's consumer GPUs support DP2.0, and I can only find 2 monitors that support DP2.0. Anyone getting new hardware now will be in a similar situation to use HDMI2.1 over DP1.4 until their next upgrade.

eqvinox 2y ago
I agree, but I also think your illustration of the problem is a bit off. The 90% gauss curve center part of customers doesn't need the tail end of display connector bandwidth. However, devices have a lifecycle, and a lot of this hardware will still be in use in 2-3 years, where this will have moved into the center part of the gauss curve. Higher resolutions and HDR (which may push 10bit) will trip this much more than a 240Hz display [which ain't ever gonna' be mainline, really, considering we went down to 60Hz from CRTs with faster refresh rates] CEC can be done over the DisplayPort AUX channel. I think there were attempts at an ARC equivalent but they floundered. Another interesting question though is how much A/V connections in general will still be used in the "TV world" down the line… with everything moving towards more integrated networked appliances instead. E.g. streaming service "HDMI sticks" are now apps on the TV instead…
- ThatPlayer 2y ago
  I agree that it's an issue very few customers are going to run into. But also that's where the differences in DisplayPort and HDMI are. For those 90%, they're equally served by HDMI and DisplayPort and will just use whatever they have. Another 10% feature difference I do like on DisplayPort is Multi-stream transport for multiple monitors over a single cable. I don't think many people are looking to daisy chain big screen TVs.
globular-toast 2y ago
ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows XP Media Centre Edition in 2005. At that time it was perfectly possible to set up a media centre that could do everything. No need for shitty TV remotes and CEC. You would use a much higher quality remote of your choice. Oh how far we've come in 20 years...
- icar 2y ago
  It's still a perfectly valid choice.
- xnyanta 2y ago
  >it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver Wait until you find out that many consumer sound bars (Sonos comes to mind) only support the latest and greatest digital audio formats over eARC.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    OK but audio technology of the 80s sounds better than the "latest and greatest formats" on a shitty soundbar so who cares?
    - xnyanta 2y ago
      Speak for yourself but I'd rather have LPCM surround audio than deal with proprietary formats like Dolby Digital and DTS which are the only way to get surround without using eARC over HDMI. This has literally nothing to do with any kind of sound bar, toast0's reply to your original comment explains the situation in detail.
      - globular-toast 2y ago
gond 2y ago
> DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. ARC could also be considered as a bug, a hindrance, or both. ARC and its various implementations would not exist if the HDMI Forum would not be so fanatically force copy protection on everything. The whole problem, or feature that ARC is or is not, would disappear with the reliance of protecting every stream. The alternative would be a full datastream, decoded, going back to the device in question. The prerequisite would be to remove the shitshow that HDCP is and allow full-blown HDMI-in and outputs, which is the exact opposite of what the Forum wants. HDMI in its current implementation hinders technological progress in the audio segment by forcing everyone to output analogue signals after the decoding stage or not allow decoding at all.
- gizmo 2y ago
  Don't you also need ARC because of video post-processing that adds frames of latency? The TV needs to send audio back to the receiver otherwise video and audio will not be in sync anymore. Receivers/amplifiers can process audio with practically no latency so it makes sense for them to be at the end of the chain.
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    Ugh, DisplayPort already has the audio channel. As far as sync, neither protocol provides for effective reclocking or supplies the audio clocks, and you need VRR to provide sort of display clocks.
    - alt227 2y ago
      I admire your exasperation on this issue :)
    - realityking 2y ago
      DisplayPort has the audio channel but AFAIK has no _return_ channel. Which is not needed in the typical computer setup but quite useful in a TV + soundbar or AVR setup.
  - 2y ago
Dagonfly 2y ago
That's assuming you're trying to avoid DSC. With DSC you can easily get 1440@240Hz even on DP1.4. Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction. Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.
- ThatPlayer 2y ago
  Yes, I'm avoiding DSC because Nvidia GPUs have an issue with DSC when switching to full screen games that cause a black screen for several seconds. DP 1.4 also does have enough bandwidth for 1440p@240hz without HDR, so I only have this issue with HDR on.

eqvinox 2y ago

I agree, but I also think your illustration of the problem is a bit off. The 90% gauss curve center part of customers doesn't need the tail end of display connector bandwidth. However, devices have a lifecycle, and a lot of this hardware will still be in use in 2-3 years, where this will have moved into the center part of the gauss curve. Higher resolutions and HDR (which may push 10bit) will trip this much more than a 240Hz display [which ain't ever gonna' be mainline, really, considering we went down to 60Hz from CRTs with faster refresh rates] CEC can be done over the DisplayPort AUX channel. I think there were attempts at an ARC equivalent but they floundered. Another interesting question though is how much A/V connections in general will still be used in the "TV world" down the line… with everything moving towards more integrated networked appliances instead. E.g. streaming service "HDMI sticks" are now apps on the TV instead…

ThatPlayer 2y ago
I agree that it's an issue very few customers are going to run into. But also that's where the differences in DisplayPort and HDMI are. For those 90%, they're equally served by HDMI and DisplayPort and will just use whatever they have. Another 10% feature difference I do like on DisplayPort is Multi-stream transport for multiple monitors over a single cable. I don't think many people are looking to daisy chain big screen TVs.

globular-toast 2y ago

ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows XP Media Centre Edition in 2005. At that time it was perfectly possible to set up a media centre that could do everything. No need for shitty TV remotes and CEC. You would use a much higher quality remote of your choice. Oh how far we've come in 20 years...

icar 2y ago
It's still a perfectly valid choice.
xnyanta 2y ago
>it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver Wait until you find out that many consumer sound bars (Sonos comes to mind) only support the latest and greatest digital audio formats over eARC.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  OK but audio technology of the 80s sounds better than the "latest and greatest formats" on a shitty soundbar so who cares?
  - xnyanta 2y ago
    Speak for yourself but I'd rather have LPCM surround audio than deal with proprietary formats like Dolby Digital and DTS which are the only way to get surround without using eARC over HDMI. This has literally nothing to do with any kind of sound bar, toast0's reply to your original comment explains the situation in detail.
    - globular-toast 2y ago

gond 2y ago

> DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. ARC could also be considered as a bug, a hindrance, or both. ARC and its various implementations would not exist if the HDMI Forum would not be so fanatically force copy protection on everything. The whole problem, or feature that ARC is or is not, would disappear with the reliance of protecting every stream. The alternative would be a full datastream, decoded, going back to the device in question. The prerequisite would be to remove the shitshow that HDCP is and allow full-blown HDMI-in and outputs, which is the exact opposite of what the Forum wants. HDMI in its current implementation hinders technological progress in the audio segment by forcing everyone to output analogue signals after the decoding stage or not allow decoding at all.

gizmo 2y ago
Don't you also need ARC because of video post-processing that adds frames of latency? The TV needs to send audio back to the receiver otherwise video and audio will not be in sync anymore. Receivers/amplifiers can process audio with practically no latency so it makes sense for them to be at the end of the chain.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Ugh, DisplayPort already has the audio channel. As far as sync, neither protocol provides for effective reclocking or supplies the audio clocks, and you need VRR to provide sort of display clocks.
  - alt227 2y ago
    I admire your exasperation on this issue :)
  - realityking 2y ago
    DisplayPort has the audio channel but AFAIK has no _return_ channel. Which is not needed in the typical computer setup but quite useful in a TV + soundbar or AVR setup.
- 2y ago

Dagonfly 2y ago

That's assuming you're trying to avoid DSC. With DSC you can easily get 1440@240Hz even on DP1.4. Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction. Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.

ThatPlayer 2y ago
Yes, I'm avoiding DSC because Nvidia GPUs have an issue with DSC when switching to full screen games that cause a black screen for several seconds. DP 1.4 also does have enough bandwidth for 1440p@240hz without HDR, so I only have this issue with HDR on.