7 ms·

Just promote DisplayPort and boycott HDMI.

by xvilka 10mo ago

jacobgkau 10mo ago
That would be easier if both GPU and display manufacturers weren't eschewing newer DisplayPort versions for older versions with DSC (which is not lossless despite its subjective claims of being "visually lossless"), while building in newer HDMI versions with greater performance.
- jsheard 10mo ago
  To be fair, the DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 standardisation process was riddled with delays and they ended up landing years after HDMI 2.1 did. It stands to reason that hardware manufacturers picked up the earlier spec first.
- AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
  what resolution is it that you can drive with "newer HDMI versions" but you cannot drive with DisplayPort 1.4 w/o DSC? The bandwidth difference is not really that much in practice, and "newer HDMI versions" also rely on DSC, or worse, chroma subsampling (objectively and subjectively worse). I mean, one has been able to drive 5K, 4K@120Hz, etc. for almost over a decade with DP1.4, for the same res you need literally the latest version of HDMI (the "non" TDMS one). It's no wonder that display screens _have_ to use the latest version of HDMI, because otherwise they cannot be driven from a single HDMI port at all. Having monitors that supported its native resolution through DP but not HDMI used to be a thing until very recently.
  - korhojoa 10mo ago
    I understand that this is not a common case, but 7680x2160@240 (not to mention using hdr and to be fair, DP 2.1 also requires DSC then). You can use this to check: https://trychen.com/feature/video-bandwidth https://trychen.com/feature/video-bandwidth
  - ThatPlayer 10mo ago
    On my computer, I cannot drive my 1440p240hz OLED display with HDR. HDR takes the requirement from 25 Gigabit to 30 Gigabits, just over DP1.4's capabilities: https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=2560&V=1440&F=240&bpc=10 https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cabl... Like you say, not that much difference, but enough to make DP1.4 not an option
devmor 10mo ago
"Just don't support the majority of consumer displays" isn't really an acceptable solution for an organization attempting to be a player in the home entertainment industry.
- tmtvl 10mo ago
  Aren't DP-HDMI adapters good enough for the majority of consumers? On my ancient (2017) PC with integrated graphics I can't tell a difference between the DP out vs the HDMI out.
  - onli 10mo ago
    The article mentions that the Club3D adapters don't exist anymore (=the popular ones), only off-brand alternatives. VRR is not officially supported via adapters, a big problem for a gaming device.
    - WithinReason 10mo ago
      According to the comments this cable supports VRR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094XR43M5/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094XR43M5/ Official site: https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-cable-matters-8k-displayport-14-to-hdmi-cable-6ft-18m-with-4k-120hz-8k-60hz-unidirectional-324gbps-display-port-14-to-hdmi-8k-cable-in-black-for-rtx-40804090-rx-78007900-and-more-upc818707024515.aspx https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-cable-matters-8k-di...
      - lbschenkel 10mo ago
        I have it, it does not. Well, it may. It depends on the firmware you install on the cable. Depending on the firmware, different things will be broken. I tried them all. There's no version that will consistently support 2160p@120 and 4:4:4/RGB and HDR and VRR, and without random handshake issues.
        WithinReason 10mo ago
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
crapple8430 10mo ago
There are a lot of PC boards where the iGPU only has an HDMI 2.1 output, or with a DP1.4. But DP1.4 doesn't support some of the resolution/refresh combinations that HDMI 2.1 does. Normally this doesn't matter, but it could if you have, for example, the Samsung 57 inch dual 4K ultrawide.
- Albatross9237 10mo ago
  I think you'd have bigger issues trying to drive that monitor with an iGPU
  - crapple8430 10mo ago
    I don't have one, but I suppose it would be just fine if you only use it for running a desktop environment.
  - bpye 10mo ago
    The iGPU on my 9950X is perfectly capable of driving my Dell U4025QW 5k2k ultrawide. Yeah it would suck for any modern 3D games, but for productivity or light gaming it's fine. It requires I use the DisplayPort out on Linux because I can't use HDMI 2.1. Because the motherboard has only 1 each of DisplayPort and HDMI this limits my second screen.
  - korhojoa 10mo ago
    It works fine with intel and amd igpu's. They won't run many games at the native resolution though. Doesn't really matter to me, as the igpu's are in work laptops for me, so 60hz or better passes for "adequate". Even a raspberry pi 4 or newer has dual 4k outputs, that can fill the entire screen at native resolution. Macs have been the worst to use with it so far.
bsimpson 10mo ago
I frequently see comments that say the TV companies are the ones getting the royalties, so I looked it up. According to Gemini, the royalties go to the _original_ HDMI founders. That includes Sony, Panasonic, Philips, and Toshiba. It does not include Samsung, or LG.
- shmerl 10mo ago
  So why can't Samsung and LG do more do improve this mess and put USB 4 / DisplayPort in all their TVs?
  - barbazoo 10mo ago
    Because the number of people that care about this is so low that it doesn't affect their sales.
    - shmerl 10mo ago
      That doesn't explain why they wouldn't want to get rid of HDMI to avoid paying patent fees for it. Adding USB 4 / DP to their TVs is a major step in that direction.
  - d3Xt3r 10mo ago
    There's no financial incentive. No other mass consumer device besides PCs use DisplayPort, heck, even PCs generally have an HDMI port. So the percentage of TV buyers who actually need to use DisplayPort (basically Linux users) would be a very very very small minority.
    - shmerl 10mo ago
      I'd assume if they aren't part of HDMI cartel as the above post suggests, they are paying patent fees for this garbage. And they are in a good position to unblock this situation by increasing adoption of patent free alternatives, therefore I don't see why they wouldn't have an incentive to avoid paying. So I'd rather see them as somehow complicit then, instead of having no incentive in this case.

Just promote DisplayPort and boycott HDMI.

by xvilka 10mo ago

Just promote DisplayPort and boycott HDMI.

That would be easier if both GPU and display manufacturers weren't eschewing newer DisplayPort versions for older versions with DSC (which is not lossless despite its subjective claims of being "visually lossless"), while building in newer HDMI versions with greater performance.

jsheard 10mo ago
To be fair, the DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 standardisation process was riddled with delays and they ended up landing years after HDMI 2.1 did. It stands to reason that hardware manufacturers picked up the earlier spec first.
AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
what resolution is it that you can drive with "newer HDMI versions" but you cannot drive with DisplayPort 1.4 w/o DSC? The bandwidth difference is not really that much in practice, and "newer HDMI versions" also rely on DSC, or worse, chroma subsampling (objectively and subjectively worse). I mean, one has been able to drive 5K, 4K@120Hz, etc. for almost over a decade with DP1.4, for the same res you need literally the latest version of HDMI (the "non" TDMS one). It's no wonder that display screens _have_ to use the latest version of HDMI, because otherwise they cannot be driven from a single HDMI port at all. Having monitors that supported its native resolution through DP but not HDMI used to be a thing until very recently.
- korhojoa 10mo ago
  I understand that this is not a common case, but 7680x2160@240 (not to mention using hdr and to be fair, DP 2.1 also requires DSC then). You can use this to check: https://trychen.com/feature/video-bandwidth https://trychen.com/feature/video-bandwidth
- ThatPlayer 10mo ago
  On my computer, I cannot drive my 1440p240hz OLED display with HDR. HDR takes the requirement from 25 Gigabit to 30 Gigabits, just over DP1.4's capabilities: https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=2560&V=1440&F=240&bpc=10 https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cabl... Like you say, not that much difference, but enough to make DP1.4 not an option

devmor 10mo ago

"Just don't support the majority of consumer displays" isn't really an acceptable solution for an organization attempting to be a player in the home entertainment industry.

tmtvl 10mo ago
Aren't DP-HDMI adapters good enough for the majority of consumers? On my ancient (2017) PC with integrated graphics I can't tell a difference between the DP out vs the HDMI out.
- onli 10mo ago
  The article mentions that the Club3D adapters don't exist anymore (=the popular ones), only off-brand alternatives. VRR is not officially supported via adapters, a big problem for a gaming device.
  - WithinReason 10mo ago
    According to the comments this cable supports VRR: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094XR43M5/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094XR43M5/ Official site: https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-cable-matters-8k-displayport-14-to-hdmi-cable-6ft-18m-with-4k-120hz-8k-60hz-unidirectional-324gbps-display-port-14-to-hdmi-8k-cable-in-black-for-rtx-40804090-rx-78007900-and-more-upc818707024515.aspx https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-cable-matters-8k-di...
    - lbschenkel 10mo ago
      I have it, it does not. Well, it may. It depends on the firmware you install on the cable. Depending on the firmware, different things will be broken. I tried them all. There's no version that will consistently support 2160p@120 and 4:4:4/RGB and HDR and VRR, and without random handshake issues.
      - WithinReason 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

crapple8430 10mo ago

There are a lot of PC boards where the iGPU only has an HDMI 2.1 output, or with a DP1.4. But DP1.4 doesn't support some of the resolution/refresh combinations that HDMI 2.1 does. Normally this doesn't matter, but it could if you have, for example, the Samsung 57 inch dual 4K ultrawide.

Albatross9237 10mo ago
I think you'd have bigger issues trying to drive that monitor with an iGPU
- crapple8430 10mo ago
  I don't have one, but I suppose it would be just fine if you only use it for running a desktop environment.
- bpye 10mo ago
  The iGPU on my 9950X is perfectly capable of driving my Dell U4025QW 5k2k ultrawide. Yeah it would suck for any modern 3D games, but for productivity or light gaming it's fine. It requires I use the DisplayPort out on Linux because I can't use HDMI 2.1. Because the motherboard has only 1 each of DisplayPort and HDMI this limits my second screen.
- korhojoa 10mo ago
  It works fine with intel and amd igpu's. They won't run many games at the native resolution though. Doesn't really matter to me, as the igpu's are in work laptops for me, so 60hz or better passes for "adequate". Even a raspberry pi 4 or newer has dual 4k outputs, that can fill the entire screen at native resolution. Macs have been the worst to use with it so far.

bsimpson 10mo ago

I frequently see comments that say the TV companies are the ones getting the royalties, so I looked it up. According to Gemini, the royalties go to the _original_ HDMI founders. That includes Sony, Panasonic, Philips, and Toshiba. It does not include Samsung, or LG.

shmerl 10mo ago
So why can't Samsung and LG do more do improve this mess and put USB 4 / DisplayPort in all their TVs?
- barbazoo 10mo ago
  Because the number of people that care about this is so low that it doesn't affect their sales.
  - shmerl 10mo ago
    That doesn't explain why they wouldn't want to get rid of HDMI to avoid paying patent fees for it. Adding USB 4 / DP to their TVs is a major step in that direction.
- d3Xt3r 10mo ago
  There's no financial incentive. No other mass consumer device besides PCs use DisplayPort, heck, even PCs generally have an HDMI port. So the percentage of TV buyers who actually need to use DisplayPort (basically Linux users) would be a very very very small minority.
  - shmerl 10mo ago
    I'd assume if they aren't part of HDMI cartel as the above post suggests, they are paying patent fees for this garbage. And they are in a good position to unblock this situation by increasing adoption of patent free alternatives, therefore I don't see why they wouldn't have an incentive to avoid paying. So I'd rather see them as somehow complicit then, instead of having no incentive in this case.