3 comments

  • NooneAtAll3 2 hours ago
    Every time I hear about HDMI and amount of legalese problems around it, my response is "you can just use DisplayPort"
    • tapoxi 2 hours ago
      Most TVs don't have DisplayPort
      • preisschild 3 minutes ago
        In my case its an issue because I have a monitor with only a single DP port and I need to switch between my tower and laptop. I have to use HDMI for the laptop to monitor connection.
      • cassianoleal 1 hour ago
        An adaptor costs £7.
        • AnthonBerg 1 hour ago
          They are not equivalent.

          Conversion is a very intricate spec fulfilment over an incredibly high bandwidth signal.

          I did the dive; The adapters are not sufficient.

        • preisschild 9 minutes ago
          There are only a few adapters that support the 2.1 features (hdr+vrr+high resolution+high refresh rate, no lossy DSC). I even had to flash custom firmware for most of those features to work (vrr still doesnt)
        • amlib 1 hour ago
          They have limitations, specially when driven to the limits of the specifications.

          When doing 4k@120fps 4:4:4 chroma you might have to deal with longer handshakes and sometimes even no handshake at all. Or random dropouts. Or HDR not activating properly.

        • eliaspro 1 hour ago
          But wouldn't this break the HDCP chain and therefore render many use-cases (playback of DRM-protected streams) broken?
          • cassianoleal 1 hour ago
            Is that a problem for most uses of DP?
        • tapoxi 1 hour ago
          For HDMI 2.0. For HDMI 2.1 and 4K/120hz you're looking at north of $25 and don't get VRR support.
  • WithinReason 3 hours ago
    This was previously blocked from inclusion in SteamOS by the HDMI forum. It would help the Steam Machine to each 4K120Hz on HDMI.
    • paol 2 hours ago
      It was blocked from inclusion in the AMD GPU drivers, it's nothing specific to Steam or the Steam Machine.

      The HDMI Forum apparently forbids any open source implementation of HDMI 2.1. Although I don't know if they ever offered an official justification, for a group that exists to promote HDMI adoption, they're clearly morons.

      • account42 2 hours ago
        It's a group that exists to make sure that the standard works for all the members, including media companies that think they can control the flow of information. They don't need to promote HDMI adoption since their members already control pretty much all the TV production.
      • preisschild 7 minutes ago
        Valve also contributes to the amdgpu driver
      • Aissen 2 hours ago
        were*

        As the article says, they most likely changed their mind, probably following quite a bit of background discussions and industry influence.

      • expedition32 2 hours ago
        If memory serves HDMI includes DRM which they don't want people to reverse engineer.
  • tosti 1 hour ago
    > 4K @ 240Hz

    WHY!?

    • preisschild 5 minutes ago
      I have a Samsung G95NC (DP2.1, 7680x2160, 240Hz) and you definitely notice the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz. Although personally I wouldn't pay a cent more for an even higher refresh rate since the difference is much less noticable than 60vs120Hz and I expect 240Hz vs 420 to make even less of a difference.
    • cassianoleal 1 hour ago
      Would you rather they explicitly blocked that even though the technology allows for it?
      • tosti 10 minutes ago
        No, I just don't think such a high refresh rate accomplishes anything. Not even bragging rights. 120Hz, possibly. But 240? Are you going to introduce a telly into a slow-motion studio, on the set?
      • nottorp 11 minutes ago
        It's too easy for display manufacturers to compete on moar pixels, moar fps, moar refresh. You just try to embiggen your numbers compared to your competitor.

        Meanwhile, features where you can't compete on numbers but can ruin the experience are ignored.