HDMI 2.0 is pointless

[3DVagabond]

I agree that it's pointless. Everyone should just adopt DP. It's always ahead of HDMI's performance, anyway.

 

[Maximilian]

Scart is where its at...

Scart... bigger is better :awe:

 

[Insert_Nickname]

MST/SST issues. -Yup. HDMI has handshake issues, so both have their drawbacks.
Low signal strength. And this is basicly a dealbreaker. -Not worse then HDMI
Very mixed cable quality. -Right, but then don't buy the absolute cheapest you can find. There is potentially more data flowing though a DisplayPort cable then a 10Gbit ethernet one. We all know the cable quality required for that...
Different cables. -So what. HDMI has, what, 5 different connectors. And two different cable qualities...
Big bulky connector. -I actually prefer that. Also full-size DisplayPorts have a proper latching mechanism, something completely lacking with HDMI. If you actually need a smaller connector mini-DisplayPort is right there.
Low cable lengths before needing active cables. -While HDMI has a slight edge there, its not much when you go higher then 1080p.
Active solutions are high cost. -Have you seen what active HDMI cables cost...?

Anyway what's the big deal? One standard is good for something, the other is good for something else. Use both were appropriate.

 

[Shehriazad]

Anyway what's the big deal? One standard is good for something, the other is good for something else. Use both were appropriate.

I agree...use HDMI for apple products...they won't feel the additional costs and claim that they use HDMI because it is part of the experience :sneaky::sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

 

[Black Octagon]

When all is said and done, I'd like for all conntectors to one day be replaced by a single victor, e.g., along the lines of this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8558/displayport-alternate-mode-for-usb-typec-announced

 

[therealnickdanger]

HDMI 2.0 is pointless, but only because it's so shortsighted. 4K60? 4K120 4:4:4 would have been worthwhile. Compliance with adaptive sync technologies would have also been good.

As others have mentioned, HDMI cables are mostly the same in their ability to transmit a signal. Paying more doesn't guarantee anything, brands don't really even mean anything, but there ARE junk cables out there and there are cables that perform "above and beyond".

http://blog.allion.com/2014/02/alli...-test-report-hdmi-cables-quality-performance/

FWIW, I've been using the same assortment of "cheap" HDMI cables from Monoprice and Amazon for years now. No matter the rating on the cable, they have all worked fine, even on my 2.0 4K HDTV.

 

[Valantar]

I've had heaps of trouble with DP, but I still (sort of) prefer it to HDMI.

Connecting my Radeon HD 6950 to my Dell U2711 gave all kids of trouble. The card has mini DP, the monitor DP. Finding either a mDP-DP adapter that wasn't prohibitively expensive (on a student budget) or a mDP-DP cable proved nigh impossible, and when I finally found one (which btw cost roughly the same as a mid-price HDMI cable of the same length), it had such awful shielding that I couldn't place my phone near my monitor unless I wanted it to black out and flicker every time the phone pinged a cell tower. After searching long and hard, I went back to DVI (which is okay, but the cables are unnecessarily bulky by modern standards, and the screws are a pain).

On the other hand, connecting a standard DP-DP cable between my ThinkPad and the monitor has been utterly flawless. This cable cost about the same as the mDP-DP cable.

The connector is IMO significantly better than HDMI - insertion is easier, the locking is both secure and easy to use (a very rare thing indeed), and I've yet to have it even look like breaking. On the other hand, I've probably broken 5 or 6 HDMI cables due to either the outer shield coming off of the plug or internal weaknesses - not through any rough handling or repeated reinsertions, they've just broken after a little while.

And let's not even talk about mini/micro HDMI versus mini DP. At least Micro HDMI is smaller than mDP, but both smaller HDMI connectors are utter crap.

The way I see it, limited adoption seems to be making DP more expensive than it ought to be (which is again limiting adoption), and availability of cables and adapters isn't where it needs to be either. Hopefully this will improve in the coming years, but I'm nervous that HDMI 2.0 might mess that up.

 

[Black Octagon]

HDMI 2.0 is pointless, but only because it's so shortsighted. 4K60? 4K120 4:4:4 would have been worthwhile. Compliance with adaptive sync technologies would have also been good.

Television and consoles typically run at 60Hz max, so there is a clear market for 4k @ 60Hz. I want to see 4k@120Hz with 4:4:4 chroma as much as the next guy, but such support is truly 'pointless' when we don't yet have 4k monitors capable of such resolutions...

I'd also point out that HDMI 2.0 was released in September 2013, i.e., just before G-Sync was publicly announced. What do you want? For the whole iteration to have been called off for however many months it would have taken for NVIDIA to develop HDMI-supported G-Sync modules on top of the still-rare DP-supported ones?

 

[destrekor]

I've had heaps of trouble with DP, but I still (sort of) prefer it to HDMI.

Connecting my Radeon HD 6950 to my Dell U2711 gave all kids of trouble. The card has mini DP, the monitor DP. Finding either a mDP-DP adapter that wasn't prohibitively expensive (on a student budget) or a mDP-DP cable proved nigh impossible, and when I finally found one (which btw cost roughly the same as a mid-price HDMI cable of the same length), it had such awful shielding that I couldn't place my phone near my monitor unless I wanted it to black out and flicker every time the phone pinged a cell tower. After searching long and hard, I went back to DVI (which is okay, but the cables are unnecessarily bulky by modern standards, and the screws are a pain).

On the other hand, connecting a standard DP-DP cable between my ThinkPad and the monitor has been utterly flawless. This cable cost about the same as the mDP-DP cable.

The connector is IMO significantly better than HDMI - insertion is easier, the locking is both secure and easy to use (a very rare thing indeed), and I've yet to have it even look like breaking. On the other hand, I've probably broken 5 or 6 HDMI cables due to either the outer shield coming off of the plug or internal weaknesses - not through any rough handling or repeated reinsertions, they've just broken after a little while.

And let's not even talk about mini/micro HDMI versus mini DP. At least Micro HDMI is smaller than mDP, but both smaller HDMI connectors are utter crap.

The way I see it, limited adoption seems to be making DP more expensive than it ought to be (which is again limiting adoption), and availability of cables and adapters isn't where it needs to be either. Hopefully this will improve in the coming years, but I'm nervous that HDMI 2.0 might mess that up.

I have a mini-DP to DP cable that I bought from Monoprice, I've never had an issue but I've also never placed my cable right next to it. I used it to connect my Surface Pro to one of my monitors, and now it serves to connect my MBP to a monitor.

With the 290X I just got, I had to switch one of my monitors from DVI to DP, as I felt that was a better solution anyway, and didn't want to mess with adapters. So I am using one of the DP cables that came with the monitors that I thankfully set aside at the time in a big bag of extra parts and cables, and again, no issues.

I haven't tested with a cell phone right next to them, but my cell phone is pretty close right now to the DP cable on that monitor (6" or so?).


Outside of that, I don't have much experience with DP. And while it seems superior to me compared to HDMI, I don't think it will ever replace HDMI on the home A/V market; I do think it will become THE standard in computing, however. Royalty free use and compatibility (common support DualMode for passive DVI/HDMI) are major factors in that, and the added ability to carry more data, and carry that signal and connector design in additional formats is huge.

I fear HDMI is incremented the way it is to both maintain and spur royalty revenue, but perhaps not. I don't see it going away in the A/V world though, not any time soon at least, because it is so entrenched and to this day, all components in the chain (TV, receivers, content sources of any kind) almost universally sport HDMI at this point. To make the switch to DP would be fairly painful, and would really require all devices going forward to have both HDMI and DP, including receivers, which should ideally have double the digital connections so that 4+ HDMI devices attached can still be attached that way.

 

[tential]

Thanks OP. I never knew HDMI 2.0 was pointless.

Can someone explain to me how to use Display Port a Vizio 70 inch P Series since HDMI 2.0 is pointless? Or should I just go back to HDMI 1.4?

 

[destrekor]

Television and consoles typically run at 60Hz max, so there is a clear market for 4k @ 60Hz. I want to see 4k@120Hz with 4:4:4 chroma as much as the next guy, but such support is truly 'pointless' when we don't yet have 4k monitors capable of such resolutions...

I'd also point out that HDMI 2.0 was released in September 2013, i.e., just before G-Sync was publicly announced. What do you want? For the whole iteration to have been called off for however many months it would have taken for NVIDIA to develop HDMI-supported G-Sync modules on top of the still-rare DP-supported ones?

Not only G-sync, but also Adaptive Sync/Freesync (the VESA/AMD standard), which will surely see more compatibility than G-sync ever will.

That is a feature that is fairly meaningless in the home A/V world anyhow, so I don't see HDMI ever adding it, to be honest. HDMI and PC's are not a common mix, there has rarely been a reason to choose HDMI out of necessity.

The bigger point, however, regarding 120Hz capable cables, I think that still stands. It would be good for a cable standard released TODAY to support 4k120. If nothing else, it guarantees the port is capable of carrying more than enough data for a fair amount of time. And, it can be available for when 4k120 becomes commonly available. That standard may still have a place for 3D, if 3D remains an assumed feature (heck, I still like it for content actually filmed in 3D - I don't get a major 3D effect on my Panny plasma, but it's enough to add to the experience if the content is worthwhile). And their could be other reasons for that data potential: I don't know if the current standards could support 12+ channel PCM audio, which will become an actual thing thanks to Dolby Atmos. It may be able to handle it already, but I'm not sure. I think DP can only handle 8 channels of PCM audio, I haven't seen that changed even with the increase in bandwidth of recent revisions.

Another potential for future HDMI revisions that should be thought of earlier instead of requiring more and more revisions: "UHD 8K" @ 60Hz. Technically, DP 1.3 can handle that, but only at 4:2:0 subsampling IIRC.

There are 4k60 4:4:4 capable TVs, but I don't think that has appeared on the PC market. Again, I don't see any reason for HDMI on the PC side of things. It is sometimes good to have on monitors so that they can support standard A/V equipment, standing in for a TV, but a PC's only purpose to have HDMI is for input capture, IMHO. It's a wasted expense to have a royalty-based standard like HDMI on the PC, when it adds nothing when it comes to connecting a PC to a monitor, where DP is superior.


Another note:
I haven't touched an MST hub, but I am rather curious about going that route later down the road, placing all three of my monitors on the DP MST hub and only having one cable actually going to the video card.

 

[Black Octagon]

It would be good for a cable standard released TODAY to support 4k120. If nothing else, it guarantees the port is capable of carrying more than enough data for a fair amount of time. And, it can be available for when 4k120 becomes commonly available.

Is it confirmed that a new CABLE will be needed for this? All I've read about DP 1.3 is that it is a new version of the connected standard. Much as how HDMI 2.0 signals can be sent across HDMI 1.4 cables, I wonder whether all you really need to wait for is DP 1.3 support on your GPU and display?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

FWIW, I've been using the same assortment of "cheap" HDMI cables from Monoprice and Amazon for years now. No matter the rating on the cable, they have all worked fine, even on my 2.0 4K HDTV.

If the cable is short enough (around 2-3m) it usually works with pretty much everything, no questions asked. Its only longer cable-runs that benefit from higher quality cables.

I've had heaps of trouble with DP, but I still (sort of) prefer it to HDMI.

Connecting my Radeon HD 6950 to my Dell U2711 gave all kids of trouble. The card has mini DP, the monitor DP. Finding either a mDP-DP adapter that wasn't prohibitively expensive (on a student budget) or a mDP-DP cable proved nigh impossible, and when I finally found one (which btw cost roughly the same as a mid-price HDMI cable of the same length), it had such awful shielding that I couldn't place my phone near my monitor unless I wanted it to black out and flicker every time the phone pinged a cell tower. After searching long and hard, I went back to DVI (which is okay, but the cables are unnecessarily bulky by modern standards, and the screws are a pain).

On the other hand, connecting a standard DP-DP cable between my ThinkPad and the monitor has been utterly flawless. This cable cost about the same as the mDP-DP cable.

The connector is IMO significantly better than HDMI - insertion is easier, the locking is both secure and easy to use (a very rare thing indeed), and I've yet to have it even look like breaking. On the other hand, I've probably broken 5 or 6 HDMI cables due to either the outer shield coming off of the plug or internal weaknesses - not through any rough handling or repeated reinsertions, they've just broken after a little while.

And let's not even talk about mini/micro HDMI versus mini DP. At least Micro HDMI is smaller than mDP, but both smaller HDMI connectors are utter crap.

The way I see it, limited adoption seems to be making DP more expensive than it ought to be (which is again limiting adoption), and availability of cables and adapters isn't where it needs to be either. Hopefully this will improve in the coming years, but I'm nervous that HDMI 2.0 might mess that up.

Hear, hear...

Outside of that, I don't have much experience with DP. And while it seems superior to me compared to HDMI, I don't think it will ever replace HDMI on the home A/V market; I do think it will become THE standard in computing, however. Royalty free use and compatibility (common support DualMode for passive DVI/HDMI) are major factors in that, and the added ability to carry more data, and carry that signal and connector design in additional formats is huge.

It has been publicly stated that HDMI and DisplayPort are not competing, but complimentary standards. HDMI is targeted at the home A/V market and DisplayPort on computing. Everyone is free to use whichever they prefer, though some seem intent on overlooking that... :|

 

[destrekor]

It has been publicly stated that HDMI and DisplayPort are not competing, but complimentary standards. HDMI is targeted at the home A/V market and DisplayPort on computing. Everyone is free to use whichever they prefer, though some seem intent on overlooking that... :|

If I did, I never intended to argue otherwise. I just personally believe it makes more sense to abandon HDMI on the PC now that DisplayPort is basically the standard. I'll continue to use HDMI in the home theater setup, including between my HTPC and receiver.

Is it confirmed that a new CABLE will be needed for this? All I've read about DP 1.3 is that it is a new version of the connected standard. Much as how HDMI 2.0 signals can be sent across HDMI 1.4 cables, I wonder whether all you really need to wait for is DP 1.3 support on your GPU and display?

Should be the same cable, I haven't heard otherwise.

 

[garagisti]

Television and consoles typically run at 60Hz max, so there is a clear market for 4k @ 60Hz. I want to see 4k@120Hz with 4:4:4 chroma as much as the next guy, but such support is truly 'pointless' when we don't yet have 4k monitors capable of such resolutions...

I'd also point out that HDMI 2.0 was released in September 2013, i.e., just before G-Sync was publicly announced. What do you want? For the whole iteration to have been called off for however many months it would have taken for NVIDIA to develop HDMI-supported G-Sync modules on top of the still-rare DP-supported ones?

HDMI is the standard on many consumer display solutions. Well, it is the solution on TV's. The greedy f***s in hollywood screw on about with drm specifications, so much more than making the experience enjoyable for a paying customer. They changed the 4k specification on all of us, including the manufacturers. So a lot of TV's sold as 4k, are not going to be able to play 4k blu ray without intervention.

HDMI is not exactly open standard, and displayport is, and for that reason alone, i'd wish that DP gains popularity in mainstream, and starts becoming the standard connector.

 

[birthdaymonkey]

I also suffered from the Dell Ultrasharp displayport issues. My computer wouldn't even power on with a monitor connected to the DP port of my 6870, a problem that took me hours to figure out. Something to do with many DP cables not being designed to spec, apparently.

I keep a DP cable on hand (supposedly one of the good ones that actually complies with the standard), but I still used DVI whenever possible. Never had any issues with HDMI other than a couple of bad cables.

 

[exar333]

DP works great.

HDMI 2.0 is a step in the right direction.

Better and better versions will be rolled-out over time as the products manifest. Realize no one will buy a special cable/connection for 16k/120hz (for example) without products either out of imminent. That's just reality.

For the 10th time, the HDMI cables are the same (unless you work for Monster).

 

[exar333]

DP [removed]

 

[Insert_Nickname]

If I did, I never intended to argue otherwise. I just personally believe it makes more sense to abandon HDMI on the PC now that DisplayPort is basically the standard. I'll continue to use HDMI in the home theater setup, including between my HTPC and receiver.

Wasn't referring to you in particular. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

It would also seem we're pretty much in agreement, though I think HDMI has its place on the desktop/mobile computing scene. If nothing else for hooking a PC to a TV without an adaptor.

HDMI is not exactly open standard, and displayport is, and for that reason alone, i'd wish that DP gains popularity in mainstream, and starts becoming the standard connector.

Its already started. F.x. Dell's newer business Optiplex-line has already embraced DisplayPort, and I'm sure others will follow. One just has to realize there is a huge number of legacy VGA/DVI ports out there, so it'll properly take 5-10 years before anything newer becomes ubiquitous.

 

[tential]

DP works great.

HDMI 2.0 is a step in the right direction.

Better and better versions will be rolled-out over time as the products manifest. Realize no one will buy a special cable/connection for 16k/120hz (for example) with products either out of imminent. That's just reality.

For the 10th time, the HDMI cables are the same (unless you work for Monster).

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Monster-Ca...le-50/10242800

Worth every penny.

Women will come to your house and just be surprised at how "big" of a "monster" you have.

 

[alcoholbob]

"Just buy a good cable"

Good one. A 4k-rated 24 awg DP cable can run you between $80-200. A 24awg HDMI cable is like $15. Not to mention in my hard forum review of the lg 31mu97, sometimes even a 24 awg DP cable isn't enough to get a working signal on a 10 foot cable run with 4k resolutions. Again HDMI 2.0 does not have this problem.

 

[exar333]

"Just buy a good cable"

Good one. A 4k-rated 24 awg DP cable can run you between $80-200. A 24awg HDMI cable is like $15. Not to mention in my hard forum review of the lg 31mu97, sometimes even a 24 awg DP cable isn't enough to get a working signal on a 10 foot cable run with 4k resolutions. Again HDMI 2.0 does not have this problem.

Like this 10ft DP 1.2 certified cable for just over $20? Buy a good cable.

http://www.accellcables.com/collections/cables/products/ultraav-displayport-to-displayport-version-1-2-cable?variant=846828961

DP has a list of certified cables on their site:

http://www.displayport.org/products-database/?products_category%5b%5d=cables-connectors&products_manufacturer=

 

[tential]

I'm still lost as to why HDMI 2.0 is pointless...

Since when did DisplayPort become standard on every single device ever?///

 

[alcoholbob]

Like this 10ft DP 1.2 certified cable for just over $20? Buy a good cable.

http://www.accellcables.com/collections/cables/products/ultraav-displayport-to-displayport-version-1-2-cable?variant=846828961

DP has a list of certified cables on their site:

http://www.displayport.org/products-database/?products_category%5b%5d=cables-connectors&products_manufacturer=

Uh no there's nothing special about $22 28awg cable there's lots of sites that sell those for cheaper. A 24 awg cable delivers twice as much power to its destination on a 10 foot run compared to a 28awg cable. If I wanted something as common as a 28awg cable I certainly wouldn't spend $22 on it.

 

[Black Octagon]

Uh no there's nothing special about $22 28awg cable there's lots of sites that sell those for cheaper. A 24 awg cable delivers twice as much power to its destination on a 10 foot run compared to a 28awg cable. If I wanted something as common as a 28awg cable I certainly wouldn't spend $22 on it.

He's responding to your prior post, which implied that one needed to spend 80-120 bucks for a "good" DP cable