[HN Gopher] HDMI 2.2 is set to debut at CES 2025
___________________________________________________________________
HDMI 2.2 is set to debut at CES 2025
Author : thunderbong
Score : 38 points
Date : 2024-12-14 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| betaby wrote:
| HDMI Forum to AMD: No, you can't make an open source HDMI 2.1
| driver
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no...
| bpye wrote:
| This is such an annoying limitation. With monitors it's one
| thing, as DisplayPort is normally an option as well (though
| with an iGPU maybe not), but if you want to display on a high
| end TV? You need to go find an active DisplayPort -> HDMI
| converter that supports all the features you need.
|
| From the bug report [0], there was an update 5 months ago that
| discussions (at AMD) were still ongoing.
|
| [0] - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1417
| p_l wrote:
| The point of HDMI port is that access to it is controlled by
| the consortium, and that it includes DRM.
|
| This isn't necessarily compatible with FOSS.
| amelius wrote:
| Well, I'm glad that BigContent hasn't taken control of our
| CPUs yet.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > If confirmed, this would align the new HDMI standard with the
| latest DisplayPort 2.1 technologies, offering consumers expanded
| options for ultra-high-definition media and gaming experiences.
|
| Why do we need new HDMI when there already is DisplayPort for
| this?
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| Because HDMI connectors can fit on PCBs.
|
| https://forum.kicad.info/t/hdmi-pcb-edge-connector-for-raspb...
|
| Never tried that with a DisplayPort connector.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Oh, that's a neat edge connector idea, I've only seen this
| done with USB before.
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| For those applications wouldn't MiniDP work just as well? Or
| DP-over-USB C?
| IshKebab wrote:
| I've never seen a single commercial device do that. I
| wouldn't be surprised if it isn't allowed.
|
| That's not a reason to keep HDMI. Obviously the real reason
| is that HDMI makes money for the people selling it.
| dheera wrote:
| HDMI connectors are easier to plug in correctly the first
| time, and their cables usually flex more.
|
| I always feel like those thick DisplayPort cables are going
| to rip the port off the PCB.
|
| Even with HDMI it's an actual concern. There should be some
| rubber suspension on every port to allow for some torquing.
| wtallis wrote:
| Yeah, that's definitely never going to pass EMI testing.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| There's no reason DisplayPort couldn't do the same thing. The
| connector on the inside is basically identical.
|
| That being said, although creative, it's a pretty terrible
| idea. PCBs are not meant to be edge connectors. Especially if
| they aren't designed for it (ie using hard gold on the edge
| connector plating).
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| Sorry, I didn't know that PCB edge connectors were a
| terrible idea! I saw it on a PCIe slot before and thought
| it might work.
|
| The other comment from @wtallis has a good point about
| electromagnetic interference (EMI). But I think it's
| shielded when it's plugged in, by the female connector.
| tjohns wrote:
| HDMI supports features needed for entertainment centers, like
| CEC and eARC. DisplayPort doesn't have these.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| Is there any reason why most TVs still don't support USB C
| display port and just support HDMI?
|
| With the recent drama around HDMI vs. Foss drivers on Linux, I'm
| curious why haven't we seen that bigger push from TV vendors to
| support USB C display port.
|
| Most of my monitors work with USB C, Even consoles like steam
| deck, a lot of high end phones seem to support USB C.
|
| So... Are there any features of HDMI that USB C display port
| doesn't support?
| nuxi wrote:
| CEC is probably one of them, but I'm not sure that's a bad
| thing.
| jsheard wrote:
| I don't think DisplayPort has an equivalent to eARC either.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| DisplayPort in native mode lacks some HDMI features such as
| Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) commands. The CEC bus allows
| linking multiple sources with a single display and controlling
| any of these devices from any remote. DisplayPort 1.3 added the
| possibility of transmitting CEC commands over the AUX channel.
| From its very first version HDMI features CEC to support
| connecting multiple sources to a single display as is typical
| for a TV screen.
|
| The other way round, DisplayPort's Multi-Stream Transport
| allows connecting multiple displays to a single computer
| source.
|
| This reflects the facts that HDMI originated from consumer
| electronics companies whereas DisplayPort is owned by VESA
| which started as an organization for computer standards.
| cesarb wrote:
| > From its very first version HDMI features CEC
|
| That depends on whether or not you consider single-link DVI-D
| as the "very first version" of HDMI.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| I imagine CEC could be added to DisplayPort.
| Crespyl wrote:
| DisplayPort->HDMI was the only way I could get my PC to
| control the TV it was attached to over CEC, since
| (apparently) the CEC pins aren't enabled on most consumer
| GPUs, but the DisplayPort aux pin can be used as an
| alternative.
|
| So the linux DisplayPort driver at least supports the
| feature, whether or not it's fully standardized/required.
| wmf wrote:
| The world doesn't care about FOSS drivers.
|
| Anyway, HDMI is for TVs and DisplayPort is for monitors.
| They're both entrenched enough that it doesn't make much sense
| to try to cross over.
| Trigg3r wrote:
| Ok, but, why not just try to converge on one connector? as
| you say, the world doesn't care...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Fundamentally different goals.
|
| HDMI world wants DRM because other than Kim Dotcom (who is
| highly problematic for other reasons) no one has dared to
| stand up to the MAFIAA goons.
|
| Computing world wants DisplayPort and a hassle-free, high
| quality experience. DRM breaks that.
| p_l wrote:
| The manufacturers very much care - every HDMI port
| (physical _or virtual_ ) involves tithe to the HDMI
| consortium, whereas DisplayPort does not.
| moritzruth wrote:
| I don't know how true it is, but I heard that
|
| - TV manufacturers are often (always?) members of the HDMI
| consortium, meaning they financially profit from each device
| that has an HDMI port.
|
| - Manufacturers of devices with HDMI ports are heavily
| discouraged from also including competing ports like DP.
| p_l wrote:
| DRM is pretty much mandatory in HDMI in home entertainment
| setup, and is controlled by the media companies' cabal, which
| is important to vendors in that space (who are often members
| too).
|
| Also, lowest common denominator HDMI in TV format has HDCP
| decoder as the only complex part, you can theoretically drive a
| dumb panel with few fixed function ICs that aren't even related
| to HDMI. Simplest dumbest case you can advertise the bare
| minimum supported display setting in EDID, and plop few buffers
| and ADCs and drive an analog TV off it.
|
| Meanwhile simplest possible DisplayPort implementations still
| requires that your display can handle packetized data sent over
| PCI-E PHY layer, with more complex data structures and setup
| information than "plop an I2C rom chip here, few ADCs and
| buffer logic here, and you've got HDMI without HDCP to analog
| CRT".
| liquidise wrote:
| Curious about the length limitations.
|
| DisplayPort and Thunderbolt are starting to make lengthier runs
| (7+ ft) tricky, which is still within the realm of cable
| management, particularly with hybrid standing/sitting desks.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Same. It's already tough finding a cable with enough length to
| go from from my floor-standing PC through my cable-managed
| standing desk and monitor arm.
| jsheard wrote:
| There will probably be long (and expensive) fiber optic cables
| eventually, but yeah the basic copper cables are likely to have
| very limited reach.
| xienze wrote:
| They already exist. I recently bought a 33 foot fiber
| DP1.4+USB3.1/2 (depending on how much video bandwidth you're
| using) cable on Amazon for about $130.
| jsheard wrote:
| I meant they'll eventually exist for HDMI 2.2, the current
| ones probably won't support the new higher bandwidth modes.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| If you need long runs, place a pair of SDI media converters in
| between. Spec is IIRC 100m for coax cable runs, longer if you
| run fiber.
| lousken wrote:
| linux support? none? ok i'll pass
| rgovostes wrote:
| CEC should be required by the spec. It's tantalizingly close to
| "just works" but marred by devices that ought to support it but
| don't, like my RTX 3060/Windows (which?).
|
| Another fun issue I have with it is that my Apple TV 4K will
| randomly (1 time in 3-4 hours?) tell the receiver to change input
| when I'm on another. I'm guessing there's some scheduled wake
| happening and it inadvertently treats it as a user interaction.
| Adds a nice element of difficulty to Elden Ring.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| My favorite is when my receiver decides to send audio to my
| PROJECTOR instead of to the goddamned speakers that are
| attached to said receiver.
|
| I heard tinny sound coming from somewhere behind me and was
| baffled when I approached the projector and heard sound coming
| from its tiny built-in speaker.
| deergomoo wrote:
| I feel like it will be a long time before this is considered
| essential, if it ever is. An end-to-end 2.1 setup will get you
| 4K120 with e-ARC and numerous flavours of VRR and HDR (though I
| don't think those last two are necessarily tied to a specific
| HDMI version).
|
| Heck, it's still rare to find a TV where all HDMI ports are 2.1
| (for years it was only LG, not sure if it's changed this year).
| doubled112 wrote:
| > still rare to find a TV where all HDMI ports are 2.1
|
| On a couple of 4K Samsung monitors I have, HDMI port 1 is HDMI
| 1.4 and HDMI port 2 is HDMI 2.0.
|
| Couldn't be simpler. The HDMI version is on the port label.
| Something about the situation makes me chuckle.
| radicality wrote:
| Why aren't they all hdmi 2.0, isn't it backwards compatible?
| Or it's just to save them a $ while technically still being
| able to advertise it as hdmi 2.0 ?
| doubled112 wrote:
| I'm going to assume it was cost cutting.
|
| The boss said to make sure it had an HDMI 2 port. The
| engineer could have interpreted it two ways, so they did
| both ways in one.
| Iulioh wrote:
| Probably it would need a better CPU to handle more traces
| and that's the real expense
| bhouston wrote:
| I really prefer USB C over both DisplayPort and HDMI.
|
| Reasons:
|
| - Easy to hook up to modern laptop (all MacBooks) that only have
| USB-C outputs.
|
| - This allows your TV to become a hub.
|
| - I have invest in a lot of high quality USB C cables rather lots
| of differ types of cables all of which requires either hubs, or
| built-in converters.
|
| Can you hook up a USB C display to a iPhone or Android phone
| directly yet?
|
| My ask of TV manufacturers:
|
| Modern TVs should have built in cameras/microphones (or the
| ability to pull in a cameras via USB and mount it on top) to
| enable video conferencing so that my chromecast/Google TV device
| can run get me into Zooms/Google Meets without any other devices.
| paulcarroty wrote:
| > Can you hook up a USB C display to a iPhone or Android phone
| directly yet?
|
| Your phone should have a video output inside the usb-c port.
| radicality wrote:
| Isn't video over USB-C still DisplayPort, just encapsulated?
| p_l wrote:
| Usually it's raw DisplayPort connection using some of the
| SuperSpeed lanes on USB3/USB-C connector. Encapsulation is
| optionally available when running Thunderbolt/USB4 on the
| port, then between consenting devices you can setup a virtal
| circuit where DisplayPort packets are encapsulated in
| Thunderbolt/USB4 packets.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| Video through your USB-C port IS DisplayPort. It's just a
| different physical connector.
|
| (Yes, I realize that there's a video-over-USB thing with a
| similar name, but that's old heavily-compressed niche junk.)
| lurking_swe wrote:
| hilarious that the "protocol" has the word Port in it. Could
| it be any more confusing? especially when something named
| "DisplayPort" is working via a USB-C port.
|
| what a mess. it's like a parody skit...imagine how a layman
| would interpret all this.
| amelius wrote:
| Sounds like a hack to me. Does the USB-C protocol allow the
| use of another protocol over the same connector?
| Iulioh wrote:
| Man, this is a sad answer in this forum.
|
| Do you know anything about USB C and why there aren't any
| cables over 3m (10ft)?
|
| And why these are 100$+ cables?
|
| (Usb4/Tb3+ cables, capable of 40gbps like a hdmi2.1)
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Can you hook up a USB C display to a iPhone or Android phone
| directly yet?
|
| iPhone: yes.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/105099#:~:text=USB-C%20displ...
| MBCook wrote:
| Mandate QMS and fix it.
|
| It's 2024. Why do TVs flash and stutter switching modes? It's
| pathetic. Quick Media Switching partially fixes this. It makes
| TVs switch their frame rates fast, so you can go from 24 to 30 to
| 60 without noticing it. Nice right?
|
| But that's it. Need to switch resolution or go from normal to
| HDR? QMS doesn't support that. Back to black screens.
|
| Come on. This should be table stakes.
|
| I didn't see it mentioned in the article at all though.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| HDMI should have been abolished in favor of DisplayPort ages ago.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2023/07/11/displayport-a-better-video-i...
|
| There are a couple of video cameras and viewfinders (particularly
| from BlackMagic) that have emerged in the last couple of years
| using DP.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| DisplayPort never caught on in the home entertainment market -
| have you ever seen a DisplayPort TV? And why would there be
| one, when everyone's happy with HDMI?
|
| DisplayPort, for most intents and purposes, has lost the format
| war. You buy a laptop - it's HDMI on the side, not DisplayPort.
| You buy a monitor - DisplayPort is never an exclusive port on
| any model, but HDMI is.
| bpye wrote:
| That's not really true. Any device with USB-C video out is
| using DisplayPort, not HDMI. HDMI alt mode exists, but AFAIK
| never shipped in any products.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If it's not the physical connector, is it even worth
| calling DisplayPort? It might as well be called something
| else, that happens to run over a DP connector or a USB-C
| connector. It's winning in a spiritual sense where nobody
| intuitively knows it's DisplayPort.
| p_l wrote:
| It's worth it because it matters to simple cases of
| normal user needing a converter dongle. Passive USB-C DP-
| altmode to DP cable are easy to acquire, cheap, and work
| fine.
|
| USB-C -> HDMI is usually expensive because nearly nobody
| uses HDMI as alt-mode outside few old devices so you end
| up with frustrated users who try to buy cheaper converter
| and find out it does not work.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| There is also MHL alt-mode over USB-C. MHL was a way to do
| video over microUSB at the time and I really can't figure
| out if any products released with USB-C MHL support either.
| p_l wrote:
| HDMI replaced VGA as the "lowest common denominator port" for
| conference usage, not as major display tech.
|
| HDMI is also for various reasons very tightly bound with home
| entertainment ecosystem because the DRM is mandatory while
| it's optional in DisplayPort.
|
| Meanwhile DisplayPort has effectively won the format war for
| computer displays, and on all newer display connectors.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > Meanwhile DisplayPort has effectively won the format war
| for computer displays, and on all newer display connectors.
|
| Not on this planet - for the highest end displays, maybe.
| Almost every small business and government office I see is
| still using VGA.
| p_l wrote:
| Interesting, I don't think I've seen VGA anywhere outside
| retro setups or places that were setup once long ago and
| left like that. I think many people don't even know there
| was such a thing as VGA these days if they work in
| office.
|
| That said, HDMI 1.0 being DVI-D in different connector
| means conversion to VGA is very easy, as DVI-D stream is
| essentially VGA data minus DAC step (including vsync
| blanking and overscan).
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| I'd say not even the highest end displays. I'm using HDMI
| 2.1 on my RTX 4080 because it has more bandwidth than the
| DisplayPort 1.4 ports on this graphic card.
|
| It's a similar port selection on even the highest end
| monitors: 40 Gigabit/s HDMI 2.1, or 26 Gigabit DP1.4. I'm
| unable to find a single DP2.0 monitor.
| p_l wrote:
| IIRC main difference was that DP1.4 at 26gbit was more
| than enough to drive 4k displays
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Sure, but if we're talking about high-end displays, 4K by
| itself isn't exactly high-end anymore. A 4 year old
| Playstation 5 can output not just 4K, but also 120hz with
| 10-bit HDR colour. This requires ~32 Gigabit/s, more than
| DP1.4
|
| https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-
| cabl...
|
| I'm personally on a 1440p240hz monitor. With HDR, this
| barely squeaks over DP1.4's bandwidth.
| p_l wrote:
| Well, yes. Another part that prevented more rapid
| adoption of DP2.0 other than longer and longer upgrade
| cycle of GPUs and displays is that another option is to
| just use 2 cables for 51 Gbit/s which was also a thing
| with early 4k displays.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > HDMI replaced VGA as the "lowest common denominator port"
| for conference usage, not as major display tech.
|
| I know a fair share of rancid conference rooms where the
| cabling is still 20 years old...
| p_l wrote:
| The decision to replace VGA with HDMI on Thinkpads was
| literally driven by market research deciding that
| likelihood of encountering HDMI setups was bigger than
| VGA by then.
| dcan wrote:
| I would argue the opposite - DisplayPort has won the
| computing format war, especially on laptops. Most laptops
| will have at least two USB-C ports with DisplayPort
| tunneling. Most business PCs have only DisplayPort
| connectivity, with the assumption that you'll buy a
| DisplayPort to HDMI adapter (if you have an older monitor
| that only supported HDMI).
|
| True, we will never see them on the TV, but on the computer
| it is all DisplayPort.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If you buy a ThinkPad, an IdeaPad, or a MacBook Pro, what
| port is on the right side?
| blueflow wrote:
| I just checked my thinkpad fleet, excluding VGA: one has
| no extra video port, one has HDMI, and 4 have displayport
| only.
| p_l wrote:
| Thinkpads will usually have multiple DisplayPorts (some
| as alt-mode on USB-C), and 1 HDMI for use with roach-
| motel-quality conference room setups.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| My MacBook Pro has one HDMI and one DisplayPort on the
| right side. The left side has two DisplayPort and a
| MagSafe.
|
| Edit: And a MacBook Air would have just the two
| DisplayPort on the left with no HDMI, plus headphone jack
| on the right.
| dathery wrote:
| Why do you assert that everyone is happy with HDMI? It has a
| lot of problems even before we get into the technical
| details. For example, it is so secretive and closed that the
| HDMI forum won't even let AMD implement HDMI 2.1 in their
| Linux driver: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-
| forum-to-amd-no...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Walk up to the nearest small business near you and convince
| them the care. I bet you $250 they will not give a darn, as
| the obviously blue connector on the back of their monitors
| still works.
|
| The people who don't like HDMI are less than 0.1% of the
| people using HDMI. For my family, the fact you can use one
| cable with the streaming stick is a revelation.
| dathery wrote:
| Why would a random small business owner have opinions
| about DisplayPort vs HDMI...? I do not think that is a
| very useful benchmark for evaluating technology
| standards, and it is kind of a conversation killer to use
| it to avoid engaging with specific technical points
| people are bringing up in reply to you. This is a
| technical discussion forum, after all.
| unclad5968 wrote:
| By that logic HDMI would never have gotten popular in the
| first place. No small business owner ever cared about
| what cable they connect to their TV as long as they have
| access to it.
| jsheard wrote:
| > DisplayPort, for most intents and purposes, has lost the
| format war. You buy a laptop - it's HDMI on the side, not
| DisplayPort.
|
| The laptops USB-C ports probably speak DisplayPort though.
| There _was_ another USB-C alt mode which carried HDMI instead
| but that spec was abandoned, DisplayPort is the de facto
| standard USB-C video protocol now.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| HDMI should have made it easy to see what cable is supporting
| what.
|
| The HDMI versioning chaos did not help.
|
| The worst is still USB 3.1 Gen 2.1 Hyper Giga Super Speed Mark
| II
| radicality wrote:
| Yeah I have no idea how normal non-tech people are supposed
| to make any sense of USB-C cables and device compatibility.
|
| Even us tech people find it difficult. Small rant - I have
| the M1 Max MacBook which comes with "USB4". I remember at
| some point getting a SanDisk external "USB4" ssd which
| claimed 20Gb/s, you would think it should all work together.
| But no, apparently the ssd needed 3.2 2x2 support, which the
| Mac doesn't implement, since it's apparently only a optional
| part of USB4 spec...
|
| One other funny thing - Apple's page for "Identify the ports
| on your Mac" has 5 separate entries that are all USB-C shape.
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/109523
| dweekly wrote:
| "...this would align the new HDMI standard with the latest
| DisplayPort 2.1 technologies"
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| DP doesn't have eARC for audio that won't work.
| jeffbee wrote:
| DisplayPort "fast AUX" stream is more than capable of
| returning audio or even video data to the "source" and some
| videoconferencing rigs even implement this. But I don't see
| why the industry would be motivated to adopt and consolidate
| around that standard when HDMI's bidirectional features
| already exist and are widely supported.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Aux is its own channel. And one I seriously wish for better
| used! It seems to only be USB2 capable but even that is
| rarely implemented!! So sad.
|
| But one of the neat things about DisplayPort is that it's a
| a packetized protocol, that many streams can go over. Which
| is why there can be multiple daisy chained monitors!
|
| So hypothetically the computer could stream out all manners
| of high bandwidth data. It's been neat to see a USB4
| adaption, where DisplayPort tunnels USB4 for data coming
| from the computer, and the aux channel is used as the
| 480mbit return channel.
|
| I don't really have any knowledge of why the aux channel is
| regarded as not capable of multi gbit/s, and maybe that's
| not even true.
|
| Given what a terrible inflexible trash porting of the past
| HDMI is though, sure makes me wish folks would do more with
| all the possibilities DisplayPort has. And it makes me
| really really wish consumer electronics would please please
| please offer some DisplayPort. Given that usb-c mandates
| DisplayPort as a required alternate mode video system,
| maybe possibly hopefully this will be some leverage that
| starts prying these HDMI rent seeker's stranglehold open.
| ACAVJW4H wrote:
| There's an interesting middle-ground worth mentioning: a 2-in-1
| connector https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Rego-
| Electronics/845-00... that can take both HDMI and DisplayPort
| cables, which could be a neat solution for devices juggling both
| standards.
|
| Here's a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZpHizpZSPQ
| showing a PC with this connector in action.
|
| Maybe not a game-changer, but it's an interesting idea to reduce
| port clutter without forcing a winner in the format war just yet.
| amelius wrote:
| What I want is a display standard that allows (or legally forces)
| a monitor to detect the signal within 100ms.
|
| Waiting for a monitor for 5 seconds (often without knowing what
| it is doing or on which input it is looking) is such a bad UX.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-14 23:01 UTC)