So when does this become the standard and replace 1.4?

It is too late HDMI Forum, you already missed your chance and lost your momentum. With so much HDMI 1.4 devices in current market you are better off just saying you charged manufacturers too much and then you got beaten by free and open standard.

HDMI 2.0, referred to by some manufacturers as HDMI UHD, was released on September 4, 2013.[145]

It will be almost two years since HDMI standard supporting 4K at 60 FPS was released but it looks like people just don`t want to adopt it.

Down with HDMI, forward with (VESA &) DP!:peace:
...and perhaps Thunderbolt...

My 4K screen came with a Display Port and cable. It works great too.

Uplink10It is too late HDMI Forum, you already missed your chance and lost your momentum. With so much HDMI 1.4 devices in current market you are better off just saying you charged manufacturers too much and then you got beaten by free and open standard.

It will be almost two years since HDMI standard supporting 4K at 60 FPS was released but it looks like people just don`t want to adopt it.

I don't at all disagree that HDMI lost it's momentum nor that DP should be the 'one true way' forward (especially considering the collaboration with USB; Dockport), but there are a lot of things to consider beyond licensing fees when discussing why the HDMI connector standard is so damn broken.

Where-as HDMI 1.4 can support 4k30 (which is all many need), HDMI 2.0 uses HDCP 2.2 which broke compatibility with a ton of equipment, and of course we also have the Silicon Image 9679 chipset being the first, and long-time only solution to support it only allowing 4:2:0 (meaning not RGB nor 4:4:4 8bit, which the standard supports) at that spec. It took forever to catch up to DP and they still managed to botch it's rollout, which is truly quite impressive in the mess they created for themselves and the fracturing in compatibility they created for consumers.

I use it, but truly...fuck HDMI. There is so much wrong with it on both fundamental and practical levels, and they don't appear to be getting their shit together in the slightest. Considering that DP 1.3 has HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatibility mode, I don't see why something can't be worked that makes consumers AND Hollywood happy.

I just find it so weird hdmi 2.0 even has a footing. Obviously some companies (like LG and Samsung) get it. They keep up to date with supported features, and even went out of their way to support adaptive sync/vblank.

What is holding everyone else back, incompetence?

DisplayPort...no backwards compatibility...without active adapters. HDMI already invested the TV business and to switch to DisplayPort, all of their equipment has to be replaced. HDMI should die, yes, but it won't because HDMI is too prolific.

HDMI Forum should really be creating a new standard that doesn't rely on two-decade's old DVI micro-packets. HDMI has always been half-assed.

FordGT90ConceptDisplayPort...no backwards compatibility...without active adapters. HDMI already invested the TV business and to switch to DisplayPort, all of their equipment has to be replaced. HDMI should die, yes, but it won't because HDMI is too prolific.

HDMI Forum should really be creating a new standard that doesn't rely on two-decade's old DVI micro-packets. HDMI has always been half-assed.

I agree with most of your post, but I must ask: Is there really a need to redesign the standard? What per say is wrong with the "2 decade old DVI micro packets." Keep in mind old doesn't necessarily mean bad.

FordGT90ConceptDisplayPort...no backwards compatibility...without active adapters. HDMI already invested the TV business and to switch to DisplayPort, all of their equipment has to be replaced. HDMI should die, yes, but it won't because HDMI is too prolific.

HDMI Forum should really be creating a new standard that doesn't rely on two-decade's old DVI micro-packets. HDMI has always been half-assed.

DisplayPort is backward compatible with VGA and DVI through the use of adapters.

What about this:
www.startech.com/AV/Displayport-Converters/DisplayPort-to-VGA-Adapter-Converter~DP2VGA

www.amazon.com/dp/B0025ZUF8K/?tag=tec06d-20

www.amazon.com/dp/B00BI3YEQO/?tag=tec06d-20

www.amazon.com/dp/B004C9M7UG/?tag=tec06d-20

DisplayPort has the best compability you could wish for!

They are all active converters (image in, process, image out) which makes them expensive ($20+). DVI to HDMI and DVI to VGA didn't require a converter at all--it was literally just a connector changer where both could be had for less than $1.

Changing from HDMI to DisplayPort would presumably require a lot of those $20 converters. It's not practical.

R-T-BI agree with most of your post, but I must ask: Is there really a need to redesign the standard? What per say is wrong with the "2 decade old DVI micro packets." Keep in mind old doesn't necessarily mean bad.

The HDMI standard is garbage because it requires royalties per connector and it doesn't have cable quality controls like VGA, DVI, and DisplayPort. An HDMI cable can claim it will work for 300 yards but virtually every HDMI cable at that length can only carry a tiny resolution and refresh rate. On the other hand, a 300 yard DVI cable will work as advertised because it was tested using VESA's methodology to make sure it will.

The problem with micro-packet is it lacks diversity. It was designed for a singular purpose back in the 1990s and that is for digital video. For example, for HDMI to add audio support, they literally had to add two more wires because the micro packet architecture does not tolerate audio packets. DisplayPort has no such limitation. It's packet architecture can carry video, audio, and even USB3.

FordGT90ConceptThey are all active converters

I will admit I may not know all about the converters, but adapter is usually just a thing that rearranges pins and converter changes audio signals from analog to digital.
DP to DVI-D should require just adapter because both are digital. DP to VGA, DVI-A should require converter since only DP is digital. With all that said DP to VGA/DVI-A "converter" should have external power source and some kind of microchip to convert signals, if you take a look at those products above you will see that none of the product has that which leads me to believe that they are in fact "adapters", I know it sounds weird and illogical but that is all I can gather from this.

FordGT90ConceptIt's packet architecture can carry video, audio, and even USB3.

And USB Type-C can also carry DisplayPort signal which is kind of interesting. What if you have keyboard connected to a display and DP connector for display is connected to USB Type-C Adapter (similar to this:store.apple.com/us/product/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av-multiport-adapter) and that USB Type-C Adapter is connected to PC. You Are essentially carrying (USB signals in DisplayPort signals) in USB signals.

FordGT90ConceptThey are all active converters (image in, process, image out) which makes them expensive ($20+). DVI to HDMI and DVI to VGA didn't require a converter at all--it was literally just a connector changer where both could be had for less than $1.

Changing from HDMI to DisplayPort would presumably require a lot of those $20 converters. It's not practical.



The HDMI standard is garbage because it requires royalties per connector and it doesn't have cable quality controls like VGA, DVI, and DisplayPort. An HDMI cable can claim it will work for 300 yards but virtually every HDMI cable at that length can only carry a tiny resolution and refresh rate. On the other hand, a 300 yard DVI cable will work as advertised because it was tested using VESA's methodology to make sure it will.

The problem with micro-packet is it lacks diversity. It was designed for a singular purpose back in the 1990s and that is for digital video. For example, for HDMI to add audio support, they literally had to add two more wires because the micro packet architecture does not tolerate audio packets. DisplayPort has no such limitation. It's packet architecture can carry video, audio, and even USB3.

An excellent explanation that really clears things up for me, thanks for taking the time to write it. :)

Uplink10I will admit I may not know all about the converters, but adapter is usually just a thing that rearranges pins and converter changes audio signals from analog to digital.
DP to DVI-D should require just adapter because both are digital. DP to VGA, DVI-A should require converter since only DP is digital. With all that said DP to VGA/DVI-A "converter" should have external power source and some kind of microchip to convert signals, if you take a look at those products above you will see that none of the product has that which leads me to believe that they are in fact "adapters", I know it sounds weird and illogical but that is all I can gather from this.

The packets aren't the same. Each DisplayPort packet has to be opened, determined if it is video, manipulated to be compliant with DVI's micro packets, then sent out the DVI end. This introduces latency. DVI going to VGA nor HDMI added latency. It was just an adapter changing the pin outs. DisplayPort only has adapters for mini DisplayPort.

Here's a detailed post about active versus passive:
www.overclock.net/t/721931/active-vs-passive-displayport-adapters-the-truth

In short:
Active: has a converter built in
Passive: relies on a converter in the graphics card (no converter, no worky)

Why not 4K@140Hz?

Prima.VeraWhy not 4K@140Hz?

Nothing exists yet that can drive that properly, its for...THE FUTURE !

HDMI is about to go away. Just look at all upcoming GPU with multiple Display port connectors and one HDMI.

ZoneDymoNothing exists yet that can drive that properly, its for...THE FUTURE !

Neh, the future is 8K@120Hz. Funny thing is this was tested almost 1 year ago. Now all we need is the connector for the video card --> TV/monitor

armdevices.net/2014/09/19/8k-120hz-demo-by-nhk-japan/

Prima.VeraNeh, the future is 8K@120Hz. Funny thing is this was tested almost 1 year ago. Now all we need is the connector for the video card --> TV/monitor

armdevices.net/2014/09/19/8k-120hz-demo-by-nhk-japan/

...and when you order a movie it will arrive in a box on a 1TB hard drive. I think technology has a ways to go before we can make it there and have any form of media for resolutions that high. Considering GPUs can barely do 4k, I think 8k is wishful thinking.

Weren't you guys screaming that you want 300DPI or more for your 27 incher? ;)

Prima.VeraWhy not 4K@140Hz?

I'm not sure if a professional would benefit from 144 Hz but as far as entertainment goes there will be very little offerings for 4K because of the bandwidth required. For example I pay extra for HD TV but I only get a few channels in 1080p. Most are 720p or 1080i. I have been told that this is because of lack of bandwidth by Comcast. Maybe they are lying but it's the same if I switch to the other cable provider here. Downloading a 4K movie would take most people a long time.

For gaming there is no combination of GPUs that can handle 4K @ 144 Hz and probably no CPU for a while that could feed the GPUs fast enough. Maybe that will improve with DX12. We'll see.

Prima.VeraNeh, the future is 8K@120Hz. Funny thing is this was tested almost 1 year ago. Now all we need is the connector for the video card --> TV/monitor

armdevices.net/2014/09/19/8k-120hz-demo-by-nhk-japan/

As far as 8K goes supposedly LG outed Apple releasing an 8K iMac later this year. The story is that the image on the screen will be lifelike which I guess has it's appeal to professionals but not for entertainment.

I don't see 8K movies and cable as a reality until serious effort is put into making the broadband bandwidth necessary practical and affordable. Bear in mind that an 8K TV would have the same number of pixels as a 16 Full HD TVs.

For gaming at 8K @ 120 Hz that is a looooong way off imo. We will probably see a 3 way high end SLI/Crossfire setup that could handle that one day but what CPU could feed those GPUs fast enough?


Edit: I went and looked at some reviews and the CPU side of things should not be a problem for most games even with games getting more demanding. Some RTS and open-world games probably will have issues though at 120/144 FPS.

Well I can agree with that, but right now there is not even a standard connector capable of transferring ~144Gpbs required for 8K@120Hz+audio. However NHK dudes were using a single optical cable for that.
Also in 2016 DisplayPort 1.4a it seems will support 8K@120Hz also (DP1.3 already supports 8K@60Hz)

Prima.VeraNeh, the future is 8K@120Hz. Funny thing is this was tested almost 1 year ago. Now all we need is the connector for the video card --> TV/monitor

armdevices.net/2014/09/19/8k-120hz-demo-by-nhk-japan/

Well if you want to go for the future future then its probably 8k @ 200hz.
Just so both resolution and refresh rate are totally factored out in determining quality.

Prima.VeraWell I can agree with that, but right now there is not even a standard connector capable of transferring ~144Gpbs required for 8K@120Hz+audio. However NHK dudes were using a single optical cable for that.
Also in 2016 DisplayPort 1.4a it seems will support 8K@120Hz also (DP1.3 already supports 8K@60Hz)

I guess I look at the specs with an eye towards what do we need for now and the near future.

Cable/ Movies don't offer much promise anytime soon.

As for gaming have a look at the Steam Hardware Survey. I know it's not accurate but it can give an idea of where we are right now as far as gaming.

store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc click on Primary Display Resolution

27.38% of gamers on 1366 X 768 resolution

34.28% of gamers on 1920 X 1080 resolution

0.05% of gamers on 3840 X 2160 resolution (1 out of 2,000)

My point is that there isn't a lot of pressure to push the HDMI/ Display Port specs much at this time.

Aquinus...and when you order a movie it will arrive in a box on a 1TB hard drive. I think technology has a ways to go before we can make it there and have any form of media for resolutions that high. Considering GPUs can barely do 4k, I think 8k is wishful thinking.

So you asume we would still buy physical based media?
Because im pretty much 100% sure it will all be streaming by then and seeing as some people already having 1Gbps connections, that should work out just fine.

64KI guess I look at the specs with an eye towards what do we need for now and the near future.

Cable/ Movies don't offer much promise anytime soon.

As for gaming have a look at the Steam Hardware Survey. I know it's not accurate but it can give an idea of where we are right now as far as gaming.

store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc click on Primary Display

27.38% of gamers on 1366 X 768 resolution

34.28% of gamers on 1920 X 1080 resolution

0.05% of gamers on 3840 X 2160 resolution (1 out of 2,000)

My point is that there isn't a lot of pressure to push the HDMI/ Display Port specs much at this time.

Thats an odd point of view, you are basically saying "nobody is using the new thing that is not really out yet now, so clearly there is no demand for it".
It takes time before something new becomes a standard and people adopt it, right now because of the current limitations on videocards/cables/screens etc people do not adopt.
I know I wont adopt 4k untill A. We will do it at 120hz (and not the bs 30hz or the dated 60hz we have now), and B. Videocards have the power and then some to actually run games at that kinda of specs (of which non exists today, the Titan X is for me massively disappointing in that regard).

4K is out and has been for a while and neither of us have adopted it for obvious reasons. Perhaps we and 99.5% of people have an "odd point of view". :)