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

41–50 of 185 posts

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

#41

Post by eqvinox »

While we're here, does anyone know why professional displays [e.g. https://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/27B1U7903_27/professional-mo... ] frequently have 2 HDMI ports and only 1½ DisplayPort? (½ for the Thunderbolt port) This feels like some kind of standard port combination… do the display driver ICs only have one DP port? Are they using TV silicon?

I know HDMI is used in some AV production setups, but that feels like a very small niche to justify having 2 HDMI ports on a display like this?

[I'd rather have 2 DP ports and only 1 HDMI… or no HDMI at all]

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

#42

Post by eqvinox »

sitkack wrote: post #29
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

> They're handing a win to DisplayPort. And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.

I don't think there was an implication that this would be bad

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

#43

Post by eqvinox »

shiroiushi wrote: post #10
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

>They're handing a win to DisplayPort. Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

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 connection on the display for that.)

There is no HDMI over Type-C (there was an attempt at it, but it died. Probably for the better of not having even more Type-C confusion and interoperability issues.)

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

#44

Post by repelsteeltje »

eqvinox wrote: post #42
sitkack wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're handing a win to DisplayPort. And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.

I don't think there was an implication that this would be bad

I guess, bad for the HDMI patent pool members.

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

#45

Post by eqvinox »

adrian_b wrote: post #15
shiroiushi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're handing a win to DisplayPort. Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

What I find very annoying is that a very large number of small computers and laptops have both DisplayPort and HDMI, but they have full-size HDMI connectors and only USB Type C DisplayPort. Using Type C for DisplayPort instead of the good full-size DisplayPort connectors is less reliable (easy to disconnect accidentally) and it permits only shorter video cables. More importantly, this blocks the Type C connector, whi…

> The reverse adapters, from HDMI to DisplayPort, are much more expensive and much bulkier, so usually they are not acceptable.

That's because those are active converters — contrast DisplayPort has "DP++" which means the source port is electrically capable of transmitting either DP or HDMI signals; the graphics card can switch modes. The adapter is a tiny IC to signal doing that switchover and just wires the data lanes through. HDMI has no such thing, you need an active protocol converter IC to get DisplayPort.

(NB: there are also active DP→HDMI converters, they have a bit longer range than the passive ones. I had to use one of them for my home projector, it's on a 10m HDMI cable which only worked on a blue moon with a passive DP++ adapter. Funnily enough it doesn't work on my native HDMI port either, only the active converter gets it running reliably… might be a poor 10m cable ;D)

DP++ wasn't part of the original DP spec, but I don't believe any DP source hardware that doesn't support DP++ is being manufactured at this point.

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

#46

Post by obirunda »

trilbyglens wrote: post #27
Rinzler89 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM. Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs Memory…

Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.

Monopolies form easily? That's funny, you should try and start one, seems quite profitable.

Seriously though, this is an oft repeated fallacy, and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

IP laws are the actual culprit in facilitating the apparatus of the state for the creation of monopolies. Most people seem to embrace this double-think that IP laws are good while monopolies are bad. You simply don't get monopolies without IP laws. IP laws are the ultimate king maker and exclusively exist to perpetuate profits of the IP owner.

If your proposition of regulation is to disband the patent offices and repeal the copyright act, my sincere apologies.

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

#47

Post by Certhas »

drchaos wrote: post #40
trilbyglens wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.

One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.

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.

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

#48

Post by jakeogh »

anal_reactor wrote: post #28
Sakos wrote: post #2

Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.

Seriously, we managed to standardize charging ports by law, maybe we can also agree on using an open standard for displays.

That is the real issue, because ultimately, this is about the memory hole. A re-upload of a camcorder copy of a VHS is no threat; it will be degraded (again) when the digital archivist who saved it's re-encoded copy[1] (from whatever video platform deleted it) posts it again. Intercepting a exact bitstream circumvents this modern camcorder copy deliberate problem, and would ultimately obliterate the non-arguments to keep the original file unavailable.

On the other hand, a signed sha3-256 digest along with the original[0] file before YT re-encoded it (and stripped it's metadata) is unobtanium for the plebs. It is the _most_ important data for the host. It's the first thing they backup. As far as I know, they (YT/Rumble/Tora3) never talk about it. Some would love to only serve hallucinated (when convenient) upscaled derivatives.

Power is threatened by persistent lossless public memory.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427179

[1]: (Mr. Bean, 2024) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

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

#49

Post by godzillabrennus »

somat wrote: post #35
Rinzler89 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM. Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs Memory…

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.

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

#50

Post by eqvinox »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #38
vzaliva wrote: post #33

There was a post here on HN some time ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36681814 ), basically explaining that HDMI is terrible and DisplayPort is a much better technical solution. So, perhaps people should favour DP instead of HDMI and gradually switch?

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 a 240Hz display [which ain't ever gonna' be mainline, really, considering we went down to 60Hz from CRTs with faster refresh rates]

CEC can be done over the DisplayPort AUX channel. I think there were attempts at an ARC equivalent but they floundered.

Another interesting question though is how much A/V connections in general will still be used in the "TV world" down the line… with everything moving towards more integrated networked appliances instead. E.g. streaming service "HDMI sticks" are now apps on the TV instead…

Post reply on HN