upvote

points

by eikenberry27 days ago |
comments
upvoteby somat27 days ago|
next
[-]
I sort of figured that HDMI stupidity was strategically a good thing as it sort of brought the dynamic of the HDMI consortium and VESA. specifically how they treat the end users, more to the public eye.

That is, more people being subtly pushed to using display port is not a bad thing.

reply
upvoteby _puk27 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I was faintly surprised that my recent monitor purchase came with a displayport cable.

Didn't help connecting it to my Macbook, but still..

reply
upvoteby esseph27 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
DisplayPort has been running the best PC high end monitors for a long while. HDMI OTOH has been in A/V land (DRM management).
reply
upvoteby babypuncher26 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Don't most monitors ship with DisplayPort cables? All of mine have. HDMI is more popular with TVs/home theater systems.
reply
upvoteby tombert26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Outside of the ones built into laptops, all my "monitors" for the last decade have been TVs, just because they tend to be cheaper at a "price to size" level.

None of them ever seem to have DisplayPort.

reply
upvoteby babypuncher26 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah TVs typically don't have DP, because extra HDMI ports are usually more valuable in a home theater setting. Game consoles, receivers, video players all have HDMI and don't have DisplayPort, meanwhile every graphics card and laptop usually supports both, so having an extra HDMI port ends up being more versatile.
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> they tend to be cheaper at a "price to size" level

Make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges, unless size is really the only thing that matters to you.

reply
upvoteby somat25 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
There is supposed to be some sort of conspiracy where the HDMI consortium actively tries to keep display port off of TV's.

Not sure if I buy it, how would that even work? lower licensing fees when no display port? I suspect the real answer is that HDMI managed to capture the market for digital video links and while display port is better it is not enough better for people to want to make the incompatibility jump.

But.... Conversely it does almost make sense. because finding DP on a TV is super rare, nobody is even trying. Historically you would find all sorts of rareish connectors on TV's(component video, s-video) so.. conspiracy... perhaps.

reply
upvoteby babypuncher25 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
DisplayPort is missing a lot of features that are meaningless in a desktop setup but important in a home theater setup. That's the only reason.
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Aren't pretty much all TV manufacturers on the HDMI consortium? You don't really need any more conspiracy than that to keep DP off TVs.
reply
upvoteby perching_aix27 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I didn't follow this story much: how exactly did they get past the legal hurdles? Or there never actually were any hurdles, just sabre rattling?
reply
upvoteby JCTheDenthog27 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Purely rumor, but supposedly Valve put tons of pressure on them (no idea by what means, again this is all rumor) because they wanted support for the Steam Machine release.
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Hoping they'll also add VRR - that's the one thing that isn't currently working with my DP->HDMI adapter setup, 4K@120Hz already works fine.
reply
upvoteby cute_boi27 days ago|
prev|
[-]
any reason why we are using hdmi over display port?
reply
upvoteby saidinesh527 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The vast majority of the TVs only come with HDMI .. not even good enough analog inputs anymore..
reply
upvoteby 0cf8612b2e1e27 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I have been told (but not confirmed) that is mandated by the HDMI mob. If you want HDMI on your TV, it cannot also have DP.
reply
upvoteby okanat27 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This can only be true for consumer-grade stuff. Even then I just guess the manufacturers kind of cheap out.

I have a dumb-ish Samsung Hotel TV / commercial TV at home. It has DP.

reply
upvoteby MarsIronPI27 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I want a TV with DP. Do you have a recommended source for where to pick up commercial TVs?
reply
upvoteby okanat26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I live in Germany and I got mine from https://www.visunext.de/
reply
upvoteby bee_rider27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Which is kind of funny. At least, to my mind this has associated HDMI-only with the budget option (TVs), and DP with the premium tier (monitors).
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm pretty sure TVs go higher in price than monitors - although professional monitors do put up a fight.
reply
upvoteby bayesnet27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What really drives me nuts is smart TVs with 100mbps Ethernet connections. When I bought a tv we looked in vain for gigabit Ethernet.
reply
upvoteby navigate831027 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It is futile to expect the TV to be smart and support all sorts of apps and hardware only to be abandoned by the manufacturer years down the line. The only correct way to buy a TV imho is to hunt for a dumb but excellent display properties and get a streaming device such as Google TV Streamer, Apple TV or DIY x86 HTPC.
reply
upvoteby cwel26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
>DIY x86 HTPC

ARM slander was not warranted

reply
upvoteby Dylan1680726 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Are there DIY Arm boards that make a good HTPC? Do they have hardware video decoding?
reply
upvoteby ihsw26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Your best bet is going to be Raspberry Pi devices:

https://github.com/blakeblackshear/frigate/discussions/18431

You can try Googling around for bespoke products but they will almost exclusively come from China and they will be very overpriced due to the soldered RAM.

reply
upvoteby izacus26 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
TVs are made with BOM of like 10$ for the SoC, so it's the cheapest crap available.

Then again - none of the streaming services are streaming at anything remotely close to 100Mbps so I doubt they consider it necessary to upgrade to GbE.

reply
upvoteby Sohcahtoa8226 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
With what feels like weekly posts about someone being shocked their smart TV is showing them ads, I'm surprised you looked for gigabit for your TV.

I've had a smart TV for over 5 years and never connected it to the Internet.

reply
upvoteby tombert26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I connected my Samsung TV to the WiFi for the first time two weeks ago because I wanted to play with the multi-screen-view thing, and it didn't appear to work with two HDMI cables.

It has not shut up asking me to update the fucking thing. Every time I turn the TV on, about twenty seconds later an update prompt will pop up, and it will not go away until I actively dismiss it. This happened even after disconnecting and forgetting the wifi. Never again.

reply
upvoteby hamdingers26 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Unfortunately we're the weird ones for wanting to stream >100mbps content.

My 2020 LG CX has a USB 2.0 port and I get ~300mbps with a gigabit adapter, if the TV you ended up with has a USB port it's worth a try.

reply
upvoteby kiririn26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
What >100mbps content is there? 4K bluray just needs a bigger buffer to handle >100mbps spikes (Kodi for example offers this) and Moonlight/Apollo/etc is well into diminishing returns
reply
upvoteby hamdingers26 days ago|
parent|
[-]
4k blu-ray remuxes break 100mbps for long enough to cause problems on my TV, unless I use either wifi or the USB adapter. Others have done investigations showing in some movies the bitrate will exceed 100mbps for minutes at a time.

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/PleX/comments/eoa03e/psa_100_mbps_i...

reply
upvoteby ThatPlayer27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Unless you're on the absolute newest stuff with DisplayPort 2.1, HDMI 2.1 has more bandwidth than DP1.4. That'll be Nvidias 2000 through 4000 series. No DisplayPort 2.1 until the RTX 5000s.

And then monitors released during this time generally do the same too.

Also if you want to use it through a capture card, HDMI ones are way more common and cheaper

reply
upvoteby esseph27 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
AMD Radeon 7000 and 9000 series all support DisplayPort 2.1
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
parent|
[-]
6000 however does not but supports HDMI 2.1 (no yet on Linux).
reply
upvoteby account4222 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not to mention TVs have been pretty much always been HDMI-only and they are the only realistic option for a living room sized monitor.
reply
upvoteby bisby27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Some people have TVs or displays that only use HDMI. I personally wouldn't recommend HDMI if DisplayPort is available, but if HDMI is your only option, then having it work properly will be important.
reply
upvoteby eikenberry27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
My monitor has 1 displayport and 2 hdmi and I have 2 computers I use with it. They can't share the displayport. All comparable monitors (last time I checked) have the same. So it'd be nice if both worked.
reply
upvoteby jaxefayo27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For one, DisplayPort doesn’t support HDR output
reply
upvoteby hmry27 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That can't be right. I'm reading this comment on an HDR monitor over DP right now.

Don't all USB-C video outputs use DP alt mode too, with an HDMI adapter at the end? And they can do HDR.

reply
upvoteby 27 days ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby funimpoded27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The cable length limitations are also a pain in the ass for not-uncommon A/V system configurations. 6' recommended max, and the best you might get working stably if the device and cable gods smile on you is 15'. 6' is the lower edge of acceptable for just about any A/V system setup (in practice it means your devices need to be within about a meter of the screen's port[s], which is pretty close) and even 15' is still too short to be useful for, say, a projector, or a "the A/V receiver or HDMI switch is over in that cabinet, the TV is on this wall across the room" situation.

HDMI goes 25'+, no problem.

reply
upvoteby simoncion26 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> HDMI goes 25'+, no problem.

Yep. That's likely because that's an active cable. Active DisplayPort cables exist, too. Here is one vendor selling active UHBR10 cables [0]. If you don't NEED UHBR, then you'll find your selection to be much, much larger. I've been using some Monoprice-branded 50 and 100 ft active fiber-optic HBR3 DisplayPort cables for years with no problem.

[0] <https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/displayport-cables/c...>

reply
upvoteby Dylan1680726 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For 4k at 60Hz, you'd need HDMI 2.0 or DP 1.2. At those speeds, both kinds of cable should be able to reach 25 feet, and I can find reputable brands selling both kinds at the length.
reply
upvoteby john_strinlai27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
displayport has supported HDR10 since 2016

and displayport 2.0, since 2019, has supported all the same variations (hdr10+, dolby vision) that HDMI does

reply
upvoteby Gracana27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Do you mean in practice, or something? DP definitely supports HDR, and it seems to work fine for me.
reply
upvoteby Sohcahtoa8226 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Confidently incorrect.

My main monitor is 4K 240 hz HDR and it works great on my DisplayPort cable, especially the HDR.

reply
upvoteby wolfd27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This seems wrong to me? I use it to do so every day.
reply
upvoteby traderj0e27 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If true, not supporting HDR is a feature
reply