853
The HDMI Forum rejected AMD's open source HDMI 2.1 implementation
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
853 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59710 readers
1823 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sounds like hdmi Forum are a bunch of twats. Time for a new format.
DisplayPort already exists
We cannot have two standards, that's ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases.
There are now three competing standards.
https://xkcd.com/927/
I know what you are referencing, but displayport already covers everybody's use cases
Oh? Let me CEC on that..
I’ll just pull it up on this display that’s more than 9 feet away from the source…
#switchtodisplayport
Yes, I agree. And it needs to be open bloody source!!
Hi, my name is USB-C!
And what does that use? That's right it's Displayport Alternate Mode! Oh you've got Thunderbolt? Guess what, also Displayport!
Chuck Testa!
Hard to find on non-pc gear, but that’s a fair point
It's usually easy enough to adapt it as needed. It can typically send signals compatible with HDMI and DVI-D just fine.
The passive adapters that connect to DP++ ports probably still rely on this HDMI specific driver/firmware support for these features.
And also USB c
USB-C display output uses the Display Port protocol
Can it use others, and is there a benefit? USB C makes a lot of sense; lower material usage, small, carries data, power and connects to almost everything now.
I believe USB-C is the only connector supported for carrying DisplayPort signals other than DisplayPort itself.
The biggest issue with USB-C for display in my opinion is that cable specs vary so much. A cable with a type c end could carry anywhere from 60-10000MB/s and deliver anywhere from 5-240W. What's worse is that most aren't labeled, so even if you know what spec you need you're going to have a hell of a time finding it in a pile of identical black cables.
Not that I dislike USB-C. It's a great connector, but the branding of USB has always been a mess.
would be neat to somehow have a standard color coding. kinda how USB 3 is (usually) blue, maybe there could be thin bands of color on the connector?
better yet, maybe some raised bumps so visually impaired people could feel what type it was. for example one dot is USB 2, two could be USB 3, etc
Have you looked at the naming of the usb standards? No you havn't otherwise you wouldn't make this sensible suggestion.
the shenenigans with USB 3 naming you mean? you're right, this would be too logical for USB lol
Don't worry, they made it worse with usb 4.
Please think of the shareholders... :(
I think that the biggest issue with dp over usbc is that people are going to try to use the same cable for 4k and large data transfers at the same time, and will then whine about weird behaviour.
Yep, very true. I didn't understand this until I couldn't connect my Mac to my screen via the USB C given with the computer, I had to buy another (and order it in specifically). Pick up a cable, and I have no idea which version it is.
There's some really high bandwidth stuff that USB-C isn't rated for. You have to really press the limits, though. Something like 4k + 240Hz + HDR.
That doesn't even seem so unreasonable. Is that the limit though? My cable puts a gigabyte a second down it so I wouldn't imagine that would hit the limit.
It is trivial arithmetic: 4.52403840*2160 ≈ 9 GB/ s. Not even close. Even worse, that cable will struggle to get ordinary 60hz 4k delivered.
4.5 × 240 × 3840 × 2160 ≈ 9 GB/s
It seems markdown formatting ruined your numbers because of the asterisks. Whatever is written between two of those turns italic, so they're not ideal for multiplication symbols here on Lemmy (or any other place that implements markdown formatting).
USB-C with Thunderbolt currently had a limit of 40Gbit/sec. Wikipedia has a table of what DisplayPort can do at that bandwidth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
See the section "Resolution and refresh frequency limits". The table there shows it'd be able to do 4k/144hz/10bpp just fine, but can't keep above 60hz for 8k.
Its an uncompressed video signal, and that takes a lot of bandwidth. Though there is a simple lossless compression mode.
USB C is just a connector, you might be referring to Displayport over USB C which is basically just the same standard with a different connector at the end. That or Thunderbolt I guess
I thought thunderbolt was DP passthrough as well
USB C seems like a good idea but in reality all it really did was take my 5 different, not interchangeable, but visually distinct, cables, and make them all look identical and require labeling
I love having mysterious cables that may or may not do things I expect them to when plugged into ports that may or may not support the features I think they do.
If the implementation is so broad that I have to break out my label maker, can we even really call it a "standard"
More people should try DP.
I thought I had NSFW turned off... 🤣
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
What do Dill Pickles have to do with being work safe?
When you're trying to get into DPs, the outside can be slippery and the screw part can be tight! Very dangerous for the workplace.
As already mentioned, DisplayPort exists. The problem is adoption. Even getting DisplayPort adopted as the de facto standard for PC monitors hasn't done anything to get it built into TVs.