Luckily with mid and high end monitors, DisplayPort is the standard. I don't understand why TVs don't come with even a single DisplayPort though. Maybe they are paid off by the HDMI forum?
But still, I like it. :-)
For some reason the bandwidth is too low?
So for 60Hz there is interop. but for 75Hz you need a thick DVI cable.
had that same issue with a 1920x1200@60 display on old hdmi connection and with a 1920x1080@60 tv on dvi-hdmi.
lowering the refreshrate slightly (59.9 Hz) made it work
However, compatibility is hit and miss in general. You may have had luck replacing one or more cables or adapters, but switching to displayport is likely to get the best results, anyway.
It's admittedly hard to get this hardware unless you're willing to pay for the top of the line versions, but it does exist.
Budget hardware usually works better with display port however, that's true
And assuming they do, they all have HDMI anyway.
As for everything else most people would connect to their TV, they all have HDMI and precisely none have DisplayPort.
Given that, supporting DisplayPort is an unnecessary expenditure on bill of materials and labor for TV manufacturers.
Only if you you define recently popular as "More than yesterday, but still a rounding error."
because for people mainly playing games but not being over obsessed with having the most expensive fastest hardware ever using a TV as screen has been popular for a very long time, like even when I was in 12grade it was already popular and that was well over 10 years ago
I picked up a 55" curved 4K about 5 years ago for use as a monitor. Now I keep my desk in the living room, so I use it as a TV too (have to move the chair). Curved TV is kind of dumb, but huge curved "monitors" are awesome. You can't find curved TVs any more, and wide curved monitors don't have the height to double as a TV.
Just throw one and if the ecosystem grows (like it did on PCs) then you keep replacing HDMI ports with DP ports.
And outside of gaming consoles it is becoming increasingly more rare to connect anything to the TV outside of the luxury segment (as even build in sound often is better then any external sound up to a price region where the lower luxury segment starts, so buying a slightly better TV without an external sound system is often better then a cheaper system and external sound).
And many of the "killer features" of HDMI (like network over HDMI) are semi-dead.
And DP is royalty free, HDMI isn't. So gaming consoles probably would love going DP only.
So as far as I can tell the only reason physical HDMI interfaces are still everywhere is network effect of them always having been everywhere.
I.e. if there is a huge disruption HDMI might go from everywhere to dying off.
And USB-C is perfectly suited for such disruption (long term).
I mean everything from server centers to high speed interconnects of consumer PCs is currently moving to various forms of "PCIe internally". USB4 and NVMe just being two examples. So it might just be a matter of time until it reaches the console/TV space and then USB-C with USB4+ or Thunderbolt would be the way to go.
Through I do not have the space to have any speakers behind the couch so it's only 3.1 either way.
Thing is, DP → HDMI adapters all suck when you’re using them to send anything but a basic 1080p picture. They nearly all fail or struggle with uncompressed 4K. I tried several different cables and adapters and despite marketing claims, they all had trouble. The best was one that was externally powered via USB, but even it exhibited quirks.
I no longer have the Rift hooked up to that machine which freed its HDMI port up, but I too wish TVs and receivers had even just one DisplayPort.
DP++ adapters tell the GPU to output an HDMI signal instead (DP is an entirely different protocol), and then just level-shift the signal. Type 1 adapters are limited to i-forgot-how-many MHz which means no more than 1080p60. Type 2 adapters contain a tiny 256 byte rom that tells the GPU its maximum supported bandwidth.
Other adapters are active, they convert the signal and thus add latency, and often need external power so can get quite hot.
What I have seen is DP → HDMI adapters that only support chroma subsampled pixel formats at 4kp60, and TVs that introduce many frame times' worth of latency due to various post-processing effects.
My hunch is as follows: given that consumer video devices (DVD/Blu-ray, set top box) almost exclusively output chroma-subsampled 4:2:2/4:2:0 YCbCr formats, TV post-processing pipelines may only support these formats, causing RGB (and possibly 4:4:4 YCbCr) signals to bypass post-processing, similar to the "PC" or "Game" modes present on some TVs that do the same.
In other words, if adapter → 4:2:2/4:2:0 and 4:2:2/4:2:0 → TV post-processing → latency, then adapter → latency, even if the adapter itself introduces no significant latency.
If I'm correct, the solution is an adapter which supports RGB output at the desired resolutions and frame rates and/or a TV with a PC/Game mode that bypasses post-processing for all source types, both of which are highly desirable for "monitor" use in any case.
In my testing (several years ago), at least half a dozen other similarly-priced DP → HDMI 2.0 adapters purchased from Amazon were limited to chroma subsampled output (4:2:2 or 4:2:0) at 4kp60, which is obviously unacceptable for desktop use, so I do see your point.
I've used the linked adapters successfully now for several years with both a 2013 Mac Pro and a pair of DP-only AMD GPUs (WX 3200 and WX 4100), all connected to a 2019 LG TV, and, while testing, confirmed all claimed signal outputs using an HDFury Vertex.
My guess is that it's not a technical or even a user experience issue. It's probably a money issue with the deals tv manufacturers make with the media industry.
i.e. Netflix won't allow their app on a device that can circumvent HDCP.
DVI connectors offered analog VGA for years. This meant that graphics card vendors could put one port on their card that did both, huzzah, and a passive adapter got you VGA out of DVI.
DVI is ahead of DisplayPort by 8 years. The DMCA is passed and HDCP becomes a Thing. Many card vendors do put DisplayPort on their cards, since it's the "Professional" standard for video, but that isn't until 2008 or so. DisplayPort would not be widely adopted until 2012-ish.
Fast forward, VGA dies. DisplayPort and DVI-Dual link are there. DVI Dual is forwards-ish compatible with upcoming HDMI displays for TVs, as pushed by the MPEG-LA and DVD makers. In 2009, less than 5% of devices shipped had DisplayPort on them. DisplayPort at this time also cannot handle the two most popular color spaces in use: sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998.
Part of the issue was a perception thing: Displayport was widely adopted by Apple early on, and consumer understanding of Mini DisplayPort was that it was an Apple standard, rather than an open standard, and this further pushed the port out of the limelight.