Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#111

Post by Certhas »

Y_Y wrote: post #58
Certhas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.

I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.

Mostly I think the person who mentioned that this is free markets working as free markets is largely right. You can't defend free markets on the basis that property rights are enforced by the state, and thus somehow changing the free market outcome.

I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I am not the only supplier of mediocre novels. I don't have a monopoly in a relevant market.

None of this contradicts the point that IP and patent rights are in desperate need of reform, or that they can play a central role in abusing a monopoly position (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange-Book-Standard).

Edit: Maybe my post was unclear: I would agree that IP should be abolished. But this is not a position I have seen classical market liberals and other free market advocates take. Instead, they tend to favor strengthening all forms of property rights. If I am wrong on this point, I'd be happy to read some examples.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#112

Post by seba_dos1 »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #49
somat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, and note that I think of the hdmi foundation as the bad guys. hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here. as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as t…

I think interface change fatigue is real. DisplayPort has been around but there wasn’t a compelling reason to use it when displays had hdmi ports. People are also looking to USB-C as the next iteration in display connectivity because it does “all of the things” from a consumers perspective.

At least video over USB-C is DisplayPort, so there's hope.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#113

Post by seba_dos1 »

squarefoot wrote: post #88
KeplerBoy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about usb-c. Video over usb-c is almost always display port in disguise.

What about latency? Is it on par or at least in the same league compared to direct connection? Not an issue for most people, but gamers could disagree if it is too high.

It's still direct connection, so there's nothing to compare there.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#114

Post by Y_Y »

Certhas wrote: post #111
Y_Y wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.

Mostly I think the person who mentioned that this is free markets working as free markets is largely right. You can't defend free markets on the basis that property rights are enforced by the state, and thus somehow changing the free market outcome. I also think critizising intellectual property on grounds of granting a monopoly is muddling the language. If I write a novel I have exclusive rights to the novel. But I…

I don't think we disagree, I would just like to add that this subtlety about "monopoly" depends on the (subjective) existence of substitute goods. Maybe as a consumer I just want any old book to read and so an individual author has no market control. On the other hand you can imagine, say, a technology that's practically or actually unavoidable as an input for a particular business (suppose HDMI had no viable alternative), then the IP holder could extract super-normal profit and make the economy less efficient.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#115

Post by arghwhat »

superhuzza wrote: post #106
arghwhat wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won. The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or…

>home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV) Except a gaming console, a laptop, a roku, apple TV... Every single person I know has some external media source plugged into their TV, even my tech illiterate mother.

You’d be surprised by the number of users who are satisfied with the built-in media experience.

I’d say it’s most likely a large majority. Google TV is common, but people with an Android-powered TV are not the main target for those until the TV gets old and out of date. Apple users on Samsung TV’s might also get far with the built in AirPlay support.

Heck, even within enthusiasts there is a strong push to use the built-in media features as it often handles content better (avoiding mode changes, better frame pacing). Even I only use an external box after being forced due to issues when relying on eARC.

Very few people plug in their laptop to a TV, and laptops are not normally HDMI. Some laptops have a dedicated port with a built-in converter, but all modern laptops are USB-C which only exposes DisplayPort.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#116

Post by ThatPlayer »

eqvinox wrote: post #50
ThatPlayer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which…

I agree, but I also think your illustration of the problem is a bit off. The 90% gauss curve center part of customers doesn't need the tail end of display connector bandwidth. However, devices have a lifecycle, and a lot of this hardware will still be in use in 2-3 years, where this will have moved into the center part of the gauss curve. Higher resolutions and HDR (which may push 10bit) will trip this much more than…

I agree that it's an issue very few customers are going to run into. But also that's where the differences in DisplayPort and HDMI are. For those 90%, they're equally served by HDMI and DisplayPort and will just use whatever they have.

Another 10% feature difference I do like on DisplayPort is Multi-stream transport for multiple monitors over a single cable. I don't think many people are looking to daisy chain big screen TVs.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#117

Post by eqvinox »

globular-toast wrote: post #72
eqvinox wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: USB Type-C ports are DP ports on most modern laptops. You just need the correct cable (or a display with Type-C connector.) I have one of these https://www.club-3d.com/en/quick-view/2470/ (actually works both directions, e.g. if you have a portable display with only Type-C connectors like this https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-e14-g4-portable-monitor — BUT it can't power the display, you need to use another c…

The "relevant devices" is surely referring to the displays here. I would love to go DP for everything but the best I can seem to find is computer monitors with 1 DP input and usually 2 or more HDMI. For living room type displays you won't find DP at all.

For PC displays on geizhals.eu, out of 3327 products:

   157 (4.7%) have  2 DP inputs
  2446 (74%)  have  1 DP input
   724 (22%)  have no DP input
Including USB-C ports,

   949 (29%)  have ≥2 DP inputs
  1806 (54%)  have  1 DP input
   572 (17%)  have no DP input
Compare HDMI:

  1350 (41%)  have ≥2 HDMI inputs
  1791 (54%)  have  1 HDMI input
   186 (5.6%) have no HDMI input
I agree it could be better but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Looking through the devices that have no DP input at all, 488 of the 572 have VGA inputs, which I'd say indicates an older generation of devices.

"Consumer" electronics (i.e. TVs) is a problem though, I'll agree.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#118

Post by arghwhat »

pjc50 wrote: post #67
arghwhat wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won. The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or…

> Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade I'm not sure about that - suddenly there's a cost in board space and BOM, and they're not automatically linked together. Or do you just mean for audio output from TV to soundbar? I feel like USB would suffice for that if anyone could be bothered. Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.

Heh, good point, USB 2.0 would absolutely suffice. You'd hardly need more than a standard audio profile either. Some TVs even support this already - recent Samsung models at least.

A specialized port could theoretically have a lower BOM cost through simpler silicon or port design, but USB 2.0 is free at this point so why bother.

> Personally I use regular TOSLINK to a stereo amplifier and accept having another remote.

The problem with TOSLINK is not only the remote scenario (which I do think is absolutely a necessary feature for any kind of adoption), but also lack of bandwidth for uncompressed surround sound.

Large surround setups at home are uncommon these days, but soundbars with virtual surround is common, and some of us still manage to squeeze in a simple 5.1 setup.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#119

Post by sgjohnson »

I feel like the only thing HDMI has going for itself is ARC.

DisplayPort is superior in every other way imaginable. Except for the fact that almost no TV supports it.

Low-end monitors also don't usually have them, but as far as computer monitors go, I'm not interested in the low-end ones.

As for TVs - just give me a dumb screen with ports. I'm going to attach Apple TV to it anyway.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#120

Post by alt227 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #101
gizmo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you also need ARC because of video post-processing that adds frames of latency? The TV needs to send audio back to the receiver otherwise video and audio will not be in sync anymore. Receivers/amplifiers can process audio with practically no latency so it makes sense for them to be at the end of the chain.

Ugh, DisplayPort already has the audio channel. As far as sync, neither protocol provides for effective reclocking or supplies the audio clocks, and you need VRR to provide sort of display clocks.

I admire your exasperation on this issue :)
Post reply on HN