Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Justsignedup | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Justsignedup

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.

View on HN

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

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

Hdmi without the leagal issuses. There are other differences but the leagal is why it exists.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

To bad my card can only do DP 1.4a but can theorectically do HDMI 2.1 - but can't under Linux.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com