HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com
Does it though? Does it really?
I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.
Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?
Using Type C for DisplayPort instead of the good full-size DisplayPort connectors is less reliable (easy to disconnect accidentally) and it permits only shorter video cables.
More importantly, this blocks the Type C connector, which I need for other purposes, e.g. an external SSD. I do not want to carry a Type C dock, so I end using HDMI, even if I do not need HDMI and I do not want HDMI and even if in almost all cases the devices had enough free space for a full-size DisplayPort connector.
Even replacing the HDMI connector with a DisplayPort connector (so that the devices would have only full-size and Type C DisplayPort) is always a better solution, because there are a lot of cheap adapters from DisplayPort to HDMI, which do not need a separate power supply and they can even be incorporated inside the video cable. The reverse adapters, from HDMI to DisplayPort, are much more expensive and much bulkier, so usually they are not acceptable.
However, the main use of adapters is when you travel and you find in your temporary office an HDMI-only monitor, or when you must use a meeting room projector. Such monitors or projectors seldom support high performance video modes.
That's because those are active converters — contrast DisplayPort has "DP++" which means the source port is electrically capable of transmitting either DP or HDMI signals; the graphics card can switch modes. The adapter is a tiny IC to signal doing that switchover and just wires the data lanes through. HDMI has no such thing, you need an active protocol converter IC to get DisplayPort.
(NB: there are also active DP→HDMI converters, they have a bit longer range than the passive ones. I had to use one of them for my home projector, it's on a 10m HDMI cable which only worked on a blue moon with a passive DP++ adapter. Funnily enough it doesn't work on my native HDMI port either, only the active converter gets it running reliably… might be a poor 10m cable ;D)
DP++ wasn't part of the original DP spec, but I don't believe any DP source hardware that doesn't support DP++ is being manufactured at this point.
On one of the HDMI pins there is a DC voltage, but it has other purposes and it is too weak to provide power for a video converter.
This is why an HDMI to DisplayPort converter always requires an additional external power supply.
(actually works both directions, e.g. if you have a portable display with only Type-C connectors like this https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-e14-g4-portable-monitor — BUT it can't power the display, you need to use another connection on the display for that.)
There is no HDMI over Type-C (there was an attempt at it, but it died. Probably for the better of not having even more Type-C confusion and interoperability issues.)
157 (4.7%) have 2 DP inputs
2446 (74%) have 1 DP input
724 (22%) have no DP input
949 (29%) have ≥2 DP inputs
1806 (54%) have 1 DP input
572 (17%) have no DP input
1350 (41%) have ≥2 HDMI inputs
1791 (54%) have 1 HDMI input
186 (5.6%) have no HDMI input
"Consumer" electronics (i.e. TVs) is a problem though, I'll agree.
Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking.
> I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.
I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers.
Sure, that situation may change, and the HDMI Forum may walk back these requirements.
At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. You very rarely see them on TVs, and a good number of mid-/lower-end monitors don't have them either.
It's bizarre, really.
No. A spec for HDMI Alternate Mode was written, but almost nobody (possibly nobody at all?) implemented it, and it was eventually withdrawn.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-a...
Having a DP to HDMI converter on one end though, that's easy.
I'm interested in learn more, in what way are they antiquated?
DisplayPort uses a typical communication protocol that can carry arbitrary data packets, not much different from the protocols used on USB or Ethernet.
Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM.
Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs MemoryStick, or USB vs Fire Wire, to say that HDMI won over DisplayPort, it was simply shoved down consumers' throats since every TV, media player and games console only shipped with that port alone as they were manufactured by the same cartel that developed the HDMI standard.
So much for the so called "free market".
Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
> HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA) is the agent appointed by the HDMI Forum to license Version 2.1b of the HDMI Specification and is the agent appointed by the HDMI Founders to license earlier HDMI Specifications.
https://hdmi.org/adopter/index
See also: https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licens...
I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I am not the only supplier of mediocre novels. I don't have a monopoly in a relevant market.
None of this contradicts the point that IP and patent rights are in desperate need of reform, or that they can play a central role in abusing a monopoly position (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard).
Edit: Maybe my post was unclear: I would agree that IP should be abolished. But this is not a position I have seen classical market liberals and other free market advocates take. Instead, they tend to favor strengthening all forms of property rights. If I am wrong on this point, I'd be happy to read some examples.
Microsoft ? RIAA ? MPAA ? Google (AI, books)
Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.
IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner.
If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.
If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others.
Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good.
This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistribute funds to another because they'll do something dubiously for the 'greater good'".
However, Utilitarianism is not a foundational principle of libertarian ideology. In fact, libertarianism often refutes and rejects it as applied to governments. It doesn't prioritize egalitarianism or rely on public opinion when defining citizens' rights.
The argument for a free market unencumbered by protectionist policies isn't about the greater good; rather, it's an argument for an ethical government grounded in first principles.
The "greater good" argument tends to crumble under close examination and logical scrutiny. Its claims on reason collapse as soon as you scrutinize them more deeply.
Notably, Utilitarianism has been the basis for nearly all modern-day dictatorships, which rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce the "greater good".
It's possible to support free markets while still caring for others – this is called altruism. It's similar to utilitarianism but without coercion and fallacies.
Could you please paraphrase my "greater good argument" that crumbles under close examination? A examination you somehow failed to provide? Maybe you hoped people are too impressed by you use of words to recognize that you even failed to provide an argument against an strawman you created?
No offense, but the way you write makes you sound like a 15 year old teenager that figured out using smart words makes you sound smart, without any deeper understanding of or regard for the concepts at hand or the arguments made. If you want to show some argument is wrong you can't just simply claim it is, you need to demonstrate it - ideally using the very logic and examination, you seem to so highly value.
To address this misunderstanding, let me break down the logical fallacies I alluded to earlier:
- The "tyranny of the majority" problem: Since happiness is determined by the number of individuals, a simple majority can impose its will on the minority, potentially denying them their rights or freedoms.
- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy: This assumes that individual well-being can be measured and added up like numbers in an equation, ignoring the complexities of human experience and the difficulties of making such calculations.
- The "majority rules" fallacy: This implies that whatever the majority wants is automatically just or right, without considering the potential for mob rule, manipulation, or coercion.
- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy: By prioritizing the greater good over individual interests, Utilitarianism may lead to the trampling of human rights and dignity.
No offense, but it's worth noting that a more nuanced understanding of philosophy and ethics might be beneficial for more accurate representations of complex concepts.
Ideally before you go off on a totally unrelated tangent again. Not trying to be mean here, but if you want others to understand why I am wrong a good start is to explain what my argument was.
Because it certainly wasn't: "conflating the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology". But maybe to the reader your amount of projection onto my very simple statement is in itself telling.
There are two problems here: 1. You misstate and mischaracterize free-market ideology as having the pretense of being to the "advantage of everybody". It's potentially a byproduct but definitely not a first principle. 2. You cast a judgment of value on egotism and selfishness as being the true motivators behind free market proponents. Selfishness and egotism are human characteristics expressed across all ideological spectrums.
"Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good." - Here is where you conflate utilitarian with libertarian ideology, especially as you label those who disagree with your view as pretenders and posers for the greater good, again misstating the position of your ideological opponent and then proceeding to cast a judgment of value on the positions they don't actually hold.
Not trying to be mean here, but have you thought about getting some reading comprehension lessons? It could really help you understand the things that you read as well as give you a more well rounded view things.
Have you ever considered I was talking about specific individuals that muttered those things towards me instead of reading everything I did as a paragraph from a political reader? I have no close relationship with Libertarianslism, as where I come from it is not very wide spread as a political ideology and more of a curiosity that gets mentioned at the fringes.
So what I criticized here are the things people told me in online discussions as a defense for why the system we have is okay. I did not ask them which ideology they subscribe to, but I am pretty sure that was not some pure text book form of Libertarian ideology. So I am still curious how my criticism of an observed phenomenon made you jump directly in defense of Libertarian ideology, that I neither thought about nor mentioned.
Additionally: I can start to understand what you're talking about once you start at the beginning instead of diving straight into some sort of convoluted US-internal political debate. Rephrasing what you thought the other person said and why precisely it is wrong is a good habit to keep before writing hundreds of lines attacking them on what you think they said.
- The "tyranny of the majority" problem is a problem of direct democracy, not utilitarianism. Happiness in utilitarianism is determined not by a number of individuals, but by all individuals and perfect utility function must take into account both majorities and minorities and create consensus. This will only fail if majority and minority have directly opposed interests, but in this case overall good is still better this way (you don't want to deny majority people their rights too in favor for minorities).
- The "majority rules" fallacy is a problem of democracy overall. Every democracy system is vulnerable to this, not only utilitarianism. But then again, perfect utility function should take into account people's desire to not be fooled, so there's that.
- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy is the same as "tyranny of the majority". Utility function takes into account interests of all individuals and tries to create the best possible consensus.
- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy is the best one here, since it's actually close to the truth. You can't really create a perfect utility function, but you don't need to. You can create imperfect one and improve it later with feedback and democracy mechanisms. With time imperfect utility function will get closer and closer to perfect one. Profit maximizing utility function can't be calculated too, but corporations handle it just fine. But if you're not blind, you can see that profit maximizing utility function leads to a lot of real people suffering (climate change, wars, hunger, poverty and many many more) while leading to profit maximization (alignment problem).
Two things can be true at the same time.
The truth is, if you are in the position to make the step towards becoming a monopolist especially in a new market it is not impossible to do so (and by the rules it should be).
Getting to that position isn't easy tho.
But from a consumer standpoint the only thing that matters is if you have monopolists or not — we don't care how hard it was for them to become one other than it might change the number of monopolists that force their crop down our throats.
Imaginary property laws most certainly encourage and facilitate monopolies and collusion, but they are not necessary to the dynamic. Such laws are essentially just the norms of business that companies would be insisting on from other businesses anyway, for which it's much more lucrative to assent and go along with rather than attempt to defect and go against them.
Another example of this effect is the DMCA - the tech giants aren't merely following its process verbatim, but rather have used it as basis for their own takedown processes with electively expanded scope - eg why we see takedown notices pertaining to "circumvention" code, or the complete unaccountability of Content ID. Google and Microsoft aren't significantly hurting themselves by extralegally shutting down a tiny contingent of their customers, meanwhile the goodwill they garner from other corporations (and possible legal expenses they save) is immense. The loser is of course individual freedom.
hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here.
as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as the nicer standards body, display port is a better system. probably just inertia at this point.
People are also looking to USB-C as the next iteration in display connectivity because it does “all of the things” from a consumers perspective.
Many people/organizations still use VGA and ketchup-mustard-onion cables to this day if they still do the job, let alone HDMI.
Add to that the fact that consumers/users can break the picture/sound in 100 different ways on their devices and you get a veritable support nightmare.
I wish it was just DVI+ but it does so much more.
But I guess HDMI is going to be replaced by USB-C in the long run. Especially since the "everything-connector" also doing Video makes more sense than the video-connector also doing everything.
FWIW: https://www.store.level1techs.com/products/p/5megt2xqmlryafj...
Sadly this is not entirely a HDMI-specific problem either, he has a displayport feeder too. Also DisplayPort had many problems with disconnects/sleep state for many years, especially surrounding EUP Compliance/EUP Deep Sleep mode. I wouldn't say DisplayPort monitors were relatively bulletproof until the GSync Compatible generation finally rolled around in 2019-2020.
I do, but this hardware doesn't have DisplayPort. I switched from Nvidia to AMD specifically for the open source Linux drivers, so I'm quite mad at the HDMI forum for this.
On the other hand, my next TV likely won't have DisplayPort, either, because almost none of them do, so it is indeed questionable whether this is going to loose them any mind share.
Arguably true, but I think that is changing all the time while there is a push towards open-source drivers regardless of the average user knowing/caring what that is, along with resolutions and refresh rates increasing.
I was affected by HDMI Forum's decision by buying an off-the-shelf 4K 120Hz monitor which refused to work at that resolution/refresh rate on an HDMI cable.
I was not expecting an arbitrary decision affecting software to be the cause instead of a hardware problem - which took me a while to figure out.
Now I know if I want to use my hardware to the full capacity, I need DisplayPort in future.
I run a 4K 144Hz monitor over HDMI. Are you sure you don‘t just need a better cable?
Maybe that's still a tiny amount, but it's likely the most common 'need'.
Most people maybe not but a simple 4K TV that can do > 60 FPS fits that criteria. Those aren't that rare anymore.
DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won.
The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or your laptop. Heck, there is no support for HDMI over USB-C - every USB-C to HDMI cable/adapter embeds a HDMI converter chip, as HDMI altmode was abandoned early on.
The only devices I know of with "native" HDMI are the specialized TV and AV receiver SoCs. The rest is DP because no one cares about HDMI.
However, seeing that home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV), I wonder if there's a chance of salvation here. The only real thing holding onto DisplayPort is eARC and some minor CEC features for AV receiver/soundbar use. Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade (some successor to toslink with more bandwidth and remote control support), but would also remove the pressure to use HDMI.
With that out of the way, the strongest market force there is - profitability - would automatically drive DisplayPort adoption in home cinema, as manufacturers could save not only converter chips, but HDMI royalties too.
I'm not sure about that - suddenly there's a cost in board space and BOM, and they're not automatically linked together. Or do you just mean for audio output from TV to soundbar? I feel like USB would suffice for that if anyone could be bothered. Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.
A specialized port could theoretically have a lower BOM cost through simpler silicon or port design, but USB 2.0 is free at this point so why bother.
> Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.
The problem with TOSLINK is not only the remote scenario (which I do think is absolutely a necessary feature for any kind of adoption), but also lack of bandwidth for uncompressed surround sound.
Large surround setups at home are uncommon these days, but soundbars with virtual surround is common, and some of us still manage to squeeze in a simple 5.1 setup.
Except a gaming console, a laptop, a roku, apple TV...
Every single person I know has some external media source plugged into their TV, even my tech illiterate mother.
I’d say it’s most likely a large majority. Google TV is common, but people with an Android-powered TV are not the main target for those until the TV gets old and out of date. Apple users on Samsung TV’s might also get far with the built in AirPlay support.
Heck, even within enthusiasts there is a strong push to use the built-in media features as it often handles content better (avoiding mode changes, better frame pacing). Even I only use an external box after being forced due to issues when relying on eARC.
Very few people plug in their laptop to a TV, and laptops are not normally HDMI. Some laptops have a dedicated port with a built-in converter, but all modern laptops are USB-C which only exposes DisplayPort.
USB-C
I mean think about it
USB-C/DP alternative mode is good enough as upstream for most use cases (including consoles)and has some additional future feature potential, and still has some USB bandwidth left usable for various things including CEC
for eARC-like use-cases (i.e. sometimes audio+video upstream, sometimes audio downstream) you have a few choices (one needs to be standardized):
- always create a DP alt mod channel upstream, use audio over USB for downstream, technically that already can work today but getting audio latency synchronization and similar right might require some more work
- switch the DP alt mode connection direction or have some audio only alt mode, which either requires a extension of the DP alt mode standard, or a reconnect. But I think the first solution is just fine
as an added benefit stuff like sharing input devices became easier and things like Roku TV sticks can safe on some royalties ... which is part of where the issue is there is a huge overlap between big TV makers and HDMI share holders, I mean have you ever wondered why most TVs don't even have a single DP port even through that would be trivial to add?
which is also why I think there is no eARC like standard for USB-C/DP alt mode, it only matters for TVs and TVs don't have DP support
honestly I believe the only reasons why TVs haven't (very slowly) started to migrate to USB-C/DP alt mode is that most of their producers make money with HDMI
and lastly there is some trend to PCIe everything in both consumer and server hardware. In the consumer segment it had been somewhat limited to the "luxury" segment, i.e. Thunderbolt. But with USB4 it slowly ends up in more and more places. So who knows PCIe based video might just replace both of them (and go over USB-C)
Thunderbolt/USB4 is not PCIe. It's a transport layer that can run multiple applications at once, sharing bandwidth based on use. This is opposed to USB-C Alternate Mode, where pins are physically reassigned to a specific application, which uses the pins regardless of whether it needs the bandwidth.
PCIe is then one of the supported applications running on top of the transport.
Support for USB4/Thunderbolt DP will proliferate, but there is still benefit to a DP altmode as it's free to implement (the host controller just wires its existing DP input lanes directly to the USB-C connector) and allows for super cheap passive adapters.
If USB-C ends up becoming the standard video connector as well, it will most likely be DP altmode as you then only need a cheap USB-C controller to negotiate the mode.
There isn't really any pressure to invent a new protocol. https://xkcd.com/927/
I suspect all the nice features that make DisplayPort a better standard are harder to implement cheaply, eg chaining
And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.
IIRC it had full duplex unlike USB 1/2, it launched well before USB with a fast 400Mbps transfer speed and its hardware controller was sophisticated enough that it could work without much intervention from the OS.
But looking into the history, the patent situation was indeed grim. Likely that's what kept it in an Apple and DV niche until USB caught up.
It's protecting your standard from being used by others when wide adoption is the only thing that differentiates your standard from others
i.e. they're shooting themselves in the foot
For me the experience is not so good, given that HDMI signals always require at least 2 very long seconds to be recognized by a monitor, often even more.
DisplayPort is superior in every other way imaginable. Except for the fact that almost no TV supports it.
Low-end monitors also don't usually have them, but as far as computer monitors go, I'm not interested in the low-end ones.
As for TVs - just give me a dumb screen with ports. I'm going to attach Apple TV to it anyway.
To make things even worse, this monitor supports sending back the ARC audio over DisplayPort, but only in stereo. If I use HDMI between the monitor and the computer, I get all of audio channels.
No device output in DP, no device accepts it, so no pressure on device to accept/output it. I guess the license price is low enough.
On computers, it sort of evolved where DVI was, you get mort port, you get better feature set, it's just superior.
But in the non-tech market I think the "real" fight will end up being hdmi vs usb-c, both of them are evolving to the point where they feed everything ethernet included. HDMI has ARC and waayyyy simpler cable and port compatibility (one version to check), usb-c has power output and every single pocket device and laptop/tablet/...
Yeah, if we exclude basically every half decent GPU and ~70% of laptop USB-C ports in existence.
The laptop's spec page doesn't say what refresh rates are supported for external displays (except saying at least 60Hz): https://support.apple.com/en-us/111901
I'll buy a new cable right now :)
HDMI ethernet and HDMI eArc use the same pins. eArc won, HDMI ethernet is pretty much dead.
So frustrating. I'm using a 42" LG OLED TV as a monitor right now. Very nice monitor at half the price of the same panel in a "real" monitor. I'm driving it with an AMD card at 60 Hz for exceedingly stupid reasons.
So, perhaps people should favour DP instead of HDMI and gradually switch?
Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which does have enough bandwidth. So until I upgrade both, I'm using HDMI. My computer is not outdated either, there's just nothing to upgrade to. None of Nvidia's consumer GPUs support DP2.0, and I can only find 2 monitors that support DP2.0. Anyone getting new hardware now will be in a similar situation to use HDMI2.1 over DP1.4 until their next upgrade.
However, devices have a lifecycle, and a lot of this hardware will still be in use in 2-3 years, where this will have moved into the center part of the gauss curve. Higher resolutions and HDR (which may push 10bit) will trip this much more than a 240Hz display [which ain't ever gonna' be mainline, really, considering we went down to 60Hz from CRTs with faster refresh rates]
CEC can be done over the DisplayPort AUX channel. I think there were attempts at an ARC equivalent but they floundered.
Another interesting question though is how much A/V connections in general will still be used in the "TV world" down the line… with everything moving towards more integrated networked appliances instead. E.g. streaming service "HDMI sticks" are now apps on the TV instead…
Another 10% feature difference I do like on DisplayPort is Multi-stream transport for multiple monitors over a single cable. I don't think many people are looking to daisy chain big screen TVs.
In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows XP Media Centre Edition in 2005. At that time it was perfectly possible to set up a media centre that could do everything. No need for shitty TV remotes and CEC. You would use a much higher quality remote of your choice. Oh how far we've come in 20 years...
Wait until you find out that many consumer sound bars (Sonos comes to mind) only support the latest and greatest digital audio formats over eARC.
This has literally nothing to do with any kind of sound bar, toast0's reply to your original comment explains the situation in detail.
The whole thing about HDMI is a circular argument. You can only use HDMI because you can only use HDMI. There's nothing technical stopping another cable supporting this stuff. That was my original point. We're in this situation for silly reasons, not technical reasons.
That's fine for regular ARC which is basically the same capability as spdif, ATSC audio and DVD audio. But there's no consumer audio cable that has the capacity for lossless surround except for HDMI, and then you really want eARC because otherwise you have one HDMI running from the receiver to the TV for video (and maybe audio) for sources that can go through the receiver, and a second HDMI that runs from the TV to the receiver for audio only for sources that can't go through the receiver (built into the tv like the tuner, network streaming, and playback from USB; and also devices that exceed the HDMI bandwidth of the receiver or don't negotiate to an appropriate video and audio format unless going direct --- I have a 4k Roku and a 1080p BluRay player that need different settings on the TV to work through my receiver, or I can wire one source direct to the TV and use eARC)
2-channel Linear PCM: 2-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit
Multi-channel Linear PCM : 7.1-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit
Bitstream: Dolby Digital / DTS / Dolby Atmos / Dolby TrueHD / Dolby Digital Plus / DTS:X / DTS-HD Master Audio / DTS-HD High Resolution Audio / DTS Express
I'd imagine whatever source is getting AAC is going to need to decode it and send as linear PCM, which should be fine.
ARC could also be considered as a bug, a hindrance, or both.
ARC and its various implementations would not exist if the HDMI Forum would not be so fanatically force copy protection on everything. The whole problem, or feature that ARC is or is not, would disappear with the reliance of protecting every stream. The alternative would be a full datastream, decoded, going back to the device in question. The prerequisite would be to remove the shitshow that HDCP is and allow full-blown HDMI-in and outputs, which is the exact opposite of what the Forum wants.
HDMI in its current implementation hinders technological progress in the audio segment by forcing everyone to output analogue signals after the decoding stage or not allow decoding at all.
IMHO, ARC is primarily useful when the display device is also acquiring the content: it's running the TV tuner or internet streaming or content off a usb drive. It's also useful if you have a 1080p capable receiver and upgrade to a 2160p(4k) display and sources: if you put the receiver in the middle, you lose on video quality, but with eARC the display can route full quality audio from all your sources. Some sources do have two HDMI outs, so you could wire to the display and the receiver, but that's not very common.
Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction.
Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.
DP 1.4 also does have enough bandwidth for 1440p@240hz without HDR, so I only have this issue with HDR on.
(290 points, 6 months ago, 164 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559318
(394 points, 6 months ago, 237 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543291
I know HDMI is used in some AV production setups, but that feels like a very small niche to justify having 2 HDMI ports on a display like this?
[I'd rather have 2 DP ports and only 1 HDMI… or no HDMI at all]
The government created the playing field. The only entity that can fix the situation is the government: they created a bad playing field, and they need to fix it.
I don't expect that to ever happen, of course. But I can dream...
The solution is to not buy proprietary standards[0], in this case, I'm looking for DisplayPort when I buy... and a big + to AMD for trying.
Hey Intel! Come back!
[0] Pile of comments here pretending it's sooo difficult.
That's an option if what you are looking for is a normal computer monitor. If you want a big TV then good luck finding one with DP, especially if you have other requirements (emissive pixels with real blacks, HDR, etc) that further limit your options.
On the other hand, a signed sha3-256 digest along with the original[0] file before YT re-encoded it (and stripped it's metadata) is unobtanium for the plebs. It is the _most_ important data for the host. It's the first thing they backup. As far as I know, they (YT/Rumble/Tora3) never talk about it. Some would love to only serve hallucinated (when convenient) upscaled derivatives.
Power is threatened by persistent lossless public memory.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427179
[1]: (Mr. Bean, 2024) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc
That's not to say the government shouldn't get involved. I think the bigger thing here is that if an industry group is specifically setting things up so that Linux is shut out of having high-end video support, then it looks an awful lot like cartel behavior -- industry incumbents are working together to lock out a competitor. Maybe it could be the basis of an anti-trust lawsuit?
Presumably Apple and Microsoft would have the most to gain. Microsoft is a member of the forum. Apple doesn't appear to be, but an Apple guy is on their board of directors.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how such a lawsuit would work. Who represents Linux in this case, since it's not owned by any one company. Linus Torvalds? AMD? And would all the companies involved in the HDMI forum be liable for the behavior of the forum (which would include AMD)? Does intentionality matter? I.e. if Linux was excluded accidentally rather than deliberately?
https://hdmiforum.org/about/hdmi-forum-board-directors/ https://hdmiforum.org/members/
Related phoronix threads - 6 months ago - 394 points
I got 8k/60 working in Linux using an nvidia card and a dp-to-hdmi adapter cable, but I have a feeling it's not meant to be supported (the same cable does not work in windows).
The difference to broken MP3 support is that if your music file does not play, you can still browse the Internet and write emails and play games, but if your graphics driver is busted, you can do none of those things from GRUB menu. In the worst case recovery mode does not work either, and you just converted your laptop into a headless server.
Troubleshooting it by browsing instructions on the mobile is no fun.
As for a broken driver, that's an easy fix I think. From my reading of the article, there's already an existing driver, but it doesn't support HDMI 2.1 features. So it's simple: provide a fall-back driver, and require users to separately download the new driver (or maybe distros can package it themselves, I'm not sure about the legality). If something goes wrong with the unsupported driver, leave an option in the boot menu to boot in a "safe mode" that uses the old driver. So they won't get 4K @ 120Hz, but I'm sure they can live with that.
(If the driver is leaked, I would imagine it to be illegal to distribute it. Companies might elect to not actively support even the fallback mechanism, if it has no other use cases. Probably not a big hurdle and something an installation package should be able to solve, but a hurdle nevertheless.)
How so? This would be a 1st Amendment issue: you can't ban free speech. They tried this with deCSS, which could be printed out on a T-shirt. Of course, if it were leaked, it could be called a copyright issue, but copyright claims require the copyright holder to actively pursue those claims: if AMD didn't bother to pursue any claims, then what could anyone do about it?
[1] Well, you can, but that just means other people can't copy it in its original form. AMD had authorized copies so they could write the code. The resulting code is not a copy of the secret document, it just uses facts from that document, and you can't copyright facts.
Similarly, if someone inside Coca-Cola shows you their master copy of the secret recipe for Coca-Cola, and you then write down a list of the ingredients and quantities and publish that on your blog, Coca-Cola can do nothing to you.
Hdmi rejected them, display port isn't ubiquitous enough, thunderbolt (usb c) is owned by Intel.
USB-C is distinct from Thunderbolt. And Thunderbolt itself got rolled into USB4 which is now an industry standard rather than one controlled by Intel.
Even so, Intel and AMD aren't so hostile to each other to avoid cross-licensing when it's mutually beneficial. A lot of the newest generation of AM5 motherboards actually include an Intel chipset for handling Thunderbolt/USB4.
And it did.
That said, those guys usually play a "back and forth" game on the long run... so stay tuned.
You should have an eye on MPEG too, because those are the same "type" of people (and ARM ISA is not far behind...)
Even if I despise big tech on nearly all fronts, sometimes we can agree, and this is AV1 and DisplayPort.
And this type of behaviour namely not having a DisplayPort port could be a perfect regulatory (anti-competitive) project for EU, like they did with apple...
Oh, okay. Fuck the HDMI forum, then.
It seems a common issue enough with that that model is specifically called out sometimes: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/how-to-connect-to-a-...