75
HDMI 2.2 interface finalised with 4K at 480 Hz and 12K at 120 Hz support, but you're going to need a new cable (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 1 year ago

DisplayPort over HDMI!!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 31 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I hate HDMI with a passion that can not be explained.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well one very good reason would be that their specification is closed source and as such not even HDMI Forum partner AMD can implement them in their open source driver.

    https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-Closed-Spec-Hurts-Open

    DisplayPort spec is fully open btw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't know, there's just something about it.

    For a long time we had VGA for video cables. There was no VGA version 2.1.9, now supporting 1024x768 mode with 16-bit colour. Cables did not cost $29. There were no rent-seeking patent holders charging license fees, or at least they weren't obnoxious enough that we knew about them. It didn't have five different types of connectors. There was no VGA consortium constantly keeping itself in the news with periodic press releases. Companies didn't need to sign away their soul to write drivers for it. There was no VGA copy protection trying to keep us from decoding our own video streams. Cables didn't include enough microelectronics to power a space shuttle.

    Somehow I think we could do better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    After 1080p60 I kind of still notice a difference, but I'm not willing to pay much more for increasing that further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I need 4k to be happy, with 1080, you have giant windows in you OS (like most apps are only usable in fullscreen) even on 100% and still see single pixels so well…

    Straight unusable for me, maybe on a phone with max 5” there 1080 is like a good middle ground (battery vs resolution vs not seeing single pixels)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, 1080p is fine on a small laptop screen, or a small TV on the other side of the room, but it's unusable for desktop applications. Even 1440 is noticeably low res. I disagree about phones, though. I think 1080p is overkill and 720p is fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think, with phones, it is very important to factor the size of screen in

    720p is fine, but with 7”+ phones, I think, one is happy about having similar DPI compared to the smaller 720p phones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Great. What’s the max length? 6”?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think It's more like the bandwidth needed to support 12k at 120hz also allows for 4k at 480hz, soo... por que no los dos?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It doesn't top out below 144Hz. There are benefits with diminishing returns up to at least 1000Hz especially for sample-and-hold displays (like all modern LCD/OLED monitors). 240Hz looks noticeably smoother than 144Hz, and 360Hz looks noticeably smoother than 240Hz. Past that it's probably pretty hard to tell unless you know what to look for, but there are a few specific effects that continue to be reduced. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yea, I think the limits are going to top out around that 300Hz mark, it's going to be really hard to convince people they can see or feel a difference between 300Hz and 480Hz. I have no preference between 240Hz and 300Hz already.

    For computer monitors, I also wouldn't be surprised if we top out at 4k for regular consumers, with a few niche 8k products available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Of course you need a new cable. You're not getting massive upgrades in fidelity on your old crappy cable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Remind me in like 6+ years when the standard is actually widely adopted. Many high-end OLED monitors today in the year 2025 still ship with fucking hdmi 2.0 and displayport 1.4.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    12K. brought to you by Hollywood Face Makeup and CGI alliance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •