Hacker News Reader

Comment by xvilka | Hacker News Reader

Just promote DisplayPort and boycott HDMI.

That would be easier if both GPU and display manufacturers weren't eschewing newer DisplayPort versions for older versions with DSC (which is not lossless despite its subjective claims of being "visually lossless"), while building in newer HDMI versions with greater performance.

To be fair, the DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 standardisation process was riddled with delays and they ended up landing years after HDMI 2.1 did. It stands to reason that hardware manufacturers picked up the earlier spec first.

what resolution is it that you can drive with "newer HDMI versions" but you cannot drive with DisplayPort 1.4 w/o DSC? The bandwidth difference is not really that much in practice, and "newer HDMI versions" also rely on DSC, or worse, chroma subsampling (objectively and subjectively worse).

I mean, one has been able to drive 5K, 4K@120Hz, etc. for almost over a decade with DP1.4, for the same res you need literally the latest version of HDMI (the "non" TDMS one). It's no wonder that display screens _have_ to use the latest version of HDMI, because otherwise they cannot be driven from a single HDMI port at all.

Having monitors that supported its native resolution through DP but not HDMI used to be a thing until very recently.

I understand that this is not a common case, but 7680x2160@240 (not to mention using hdr and to be fair, DP 2.1 also requires DSC then).

You can use this to check: https://trychen.com/feature/video-bandwidth

On my computer, I cannot drive my 1440p240hz OLED display with HDR. HDR takes the requirement from 25 Gigabit to 30 Gigabits, just over DP1.4's capabilities: https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cabl...

Like you say, not that much difference, but enough to make DP1.4 not an option

There are a lot of PC boards where the iGPU only has an HDMI 2.1 output, or with a DP1.4. But DP1.4 doesn't support some of the resolution/refresh combinations that HDMI 2.1 does. Normally this doesn't matter, but it could if you have, for example, the Samsung 57 inch dual 4K ultrawide.

I think you'd have bigger issues trying to drive that monitor with an iGPU

The iGPU on my 9950X is perfectly capable of driving my Dell U4025QW 5k2k ultrawide. Yeah it would suck for any modern 3D games, but for productivity or light gaming it's fine.

It requires I use the DisplayPort out on Linux because I can't use HDMI 2.1. Because the motherboard has only 1 each of DisplayPort and HDMI this limits my second screen.

It works fine with intel and amd igpu's. They won't run many games at the native resolution though. Doesn't really matter to me, as the igpu's are in work laptops for me, so 60hz or better passes for "adequate".

Even a raspberry pi 4 or newer has dual 4k outputs, that can fill the entire screen at native resolution. Macs have been the worst to use with it so far.

I don't have one, but I suppose it would be just fine if you only use it for running a desktop environment.

"Just don't support the majority of consumer displays" isn't really an acceptable solution for an organization attempting to be a player in the home entertainment industry.

the problem only affect a subset of HDMI 2.1 features, not HDMI 2.0

but the steam machine isn't really super powerful (fast enough for a lot of games, faster then what a lot of steam customers have, sure. But still no that fast.)

So most of the HDMI 2.1 features it can't use aren't that relevant. Like sure you don't get >60fps@4K but you already need a good amount of FSR to get to 60fps@4k.

Just because the Steam Machine isn't powerful enough to support high framerates in modern AAA games doesn't mean it can't do so with older or less graphically-intensive games.

VRR and HDR are presumably the biggest issues, because HDMI 2.0 should already have enough bandwith to support 8-bit 2160p120 with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which should work fine for most SDR games, and 144 Hz vs 120 Hz is, in my experience at least, not noticeably different enough to be worth fussing over.

Some people will want to use their Steam Machine as a general-purpose desktop, of course, where RGB or 4:2:2 is nonnegotiable. Though in this case 120 Hz — or 120,000/1001 Hz, thanks NTSC — is, again in my experience, superior to 144 Hz as it avoids frame pacing issues with 30/60 Hz video.

Not supporting VRR is a pretty significant issue.

> "Just don't support the majority of consumer displays" isn't really an acceptable solution for an organization attempting to be a player in the home entertainment industry.

I would recommend Valve to create an official list of consumer displays that ("certified by Valve") do have proper support for the most recent version of Display Port with support for all features relevant to gaming.

This way gamers know which display to buy next, and display vendors get free advertising for their efforts that is circulated to an audience that is very willing to buy a display in the near future.

The complete list of TVs from major brands that do this is very easy to compile; here it is in its entirety:

Hisense U8QG (over USB-C), no VRR though

So neither of the two things that were being asked for.

Definitely a good idea and should improve the end user experience right now as well

Aren't DP-HDMI adapters good enough for the majority of consumers? On my ancient (2017) PC with integrated graphics I can't tell a difference between the DP out vs the HDMI out.

The article mentions that the Club3D adapters don't exist anymore (=the popular ones), only off-brand alternatives. VRR is not officially supported via adapters, a big problem for a gaming device.

According to the comments this cable supports VRR:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B094XR43M5/

Official site: https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1398-154-cable-matters-8k-di...

I have it, it does not. Well, it may. It depends on the firmware you install on the cable. Depending on the firmware, different things will be broken. I tried them all. There's no version that will consistently support 2160p@120 and 4:4:4/RGB and HDR and VRR, and without random handshake issues.

Good to know!

err, that's what Valve is doing?

Well, only for the extremes where you'd need HDMI 2.1. 99% of HDMI displays will work without issue...

From the context I have, this complaint arose via development of the new (2025) Steam Machine.

I frequently see comments that say the TV companies are the ones getting the royalties, so I looked it up.

According to Gemini, the royalties go to the _original_ HDMI founders. That includes Sony, Panasonic, Philips, and Toshiba. It does not include Samsung, or LG.

So why can't Samsung and LG do more do improve this mess and put USB 4 / DisplayPort in all their TVs?

There's no financial incentive. No other mass consumer device besides PCs use DisplayPort, heck, even PCs generally have an HDMI port. So the percentage of TV buyers who actually need to use DisplayPort (basically Linux users) would be a very very very small minority.

I'd assume if they aren't part of HDMI cartel as the above post suggests, they are paying patent fees for this garbage.

And they are in a good position to unblock this situation by increasing adoption of patent free alternatives, therefore I don't see why they wouldn't have an incentive to avoid paying.

So I'd rather see them as somehow complicit then, instead of having no incentive in this case.

They have to pay the fees regardless, since no TV would sell if it didn't have an HDMI port. So unless the TV manufacturers can also convince set-top box makers, game console manufacturers, Blu-Ray makers etc to include DisplayPort, they'll need to continue including an HDMI port.

So this needs to be an industry-wide switch, not just TV makers.

For now, but that doesn't stop them from nudging things in the direction where HDMI will become obsolete by doing their part. I.e. it's not an instant thing, but each step in that direction helps and they can make a pretty significant one.

So the argument of no incentives just doesn't make sense, but it's a gradual process to get there. Unless their bean counters only understand super short term incentives. Then they should be blamed too for why things aren't improving in this regard.

The incentive seems very thin/weak. Pay extra now to push DP adoption and hope that in ~10-15 years you can drop the HDMI port? Meanwhile you still pay the cartel, and they invest your money directly against your interests. And it all hinges on predicting consumer adoption which is nearly impossible. I honestly don’t see how they could justify making such a step in that direction let alone a significant one.

That's a catch 22 / circular argument that can always be used to excuse inaction, but it's not a real argument. Yes, it's a long term problem to solve and has many moving parts. But if they don't solve their part, they are only slowing it down even more. Any contribution to move things forward moves things forward, and lack of it delays things.

I.e. if you are saying "we feed the cartel, let's not do anything about it, since doing anything will only potentially help later, so we still need to feed the cartel in in the interim" doesn't really stand any argument grounds. I.e. feed the cartel and do nothing is worse than feed the cartel and do what you can to stop that over time.

And their piece of this is pretty big (huge portion of TV market), that's why they in particular should be asked more than others, why they aren't doing their part.

It's not so much that it's a catch 22, its that there's no financial incentive for them. TVs are a low margin item already, and Samsung/LG get their margin by being brand names and advertising fancy features.

I doubt they would meaningfully save money over investing in DP, and the opportunity cost is greater for them to spend that money on the next "Frame" TV or whatever.

LG, Samsung and Sony are the only actual panel manufacturers and they probably bake those license fees into the panels they sell back to HDMI Forum.

May be, but by not solving the problem, they become part of the problem, even if they aren't part of HDMI cartel directly. So it's their fault too problems like above happen.

For DP adoption it's too late. They should push for USB4 / Thunderbolt 4 instead. We are in the phase where about every new laptop has USB4. Connecting your laptop/phone to a TV might be a selling point. I'd love that for hotel TVs.

Because the number of people that care about this is so low that it doesn't affect their sales.

That doesn't explain why they wouldn't want to get rid of HDMI to avoid paying patent fees for it. Adding USB 4 / DP to their TVs is a major step in that direction.

Is there a non-LLM source for that?

We're really just relying on LLMs to tell us things with no verification now?

I verified it with Grok, it says the same thing

If you think this is proof of it being true, then I am both worried and astonished. How about looking for the information yourself, instead of relying on LLMs? This is HN I thought?!

I'm sure 2 LLMs wouldn't hallucinate the same thing, especially when using RAG, so I'm confident in the accuracy in the information.

I thought your first reply was a sarcasm, now I'm a bit concerned for humanity.

Interesting, did the llm provide the sources for that info ?

Please don't post random LLM slop on HN, there's more than enough of it on the internet as is. The value of HN is the human discussion. Everyone here is capable of using an LLM if they so desire.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com