cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/12544593

Alex Deucher:

The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s an older interface than DP and has “better” support for audio (I.e. all of those proprietary passthrough audio formats that home theater setups support) so it became dominant in TVs. Monitors are still DP first but likely have a HDMI port as well.

        • didnt_readit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That kind of makes sense though. I figure they assume you’ll have one computer hooked up and then a bunch of consumer devices that all use HDMI. And if you need a second computer hooked up you can also use HDMI if needed. Probably makes the most sense to the most people as having more DP in place of HDMI would just mean the average user couldn’t hook up as many devices since (almost?) no consumer devices use DP unfortunately.

    • gray@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You forget every desktop GPU having 3 DisplayPorts and only 1 HDMI, and USB C supporting DisplayPort?

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In my experience, its cause monitors are already over priced, and adding a display port to it seems to add at least another 100 on top of that.

      Which is why I prefer HDMI. Less cable headache too, since I only have to keep one type of cable in stock and so i can easily switch for testing/diagnostics/layout change purposes.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didnt say they did, I said they seem to, since in my experience every monitor that had similar spec, but had a display port, was about 100 dollars on top of whatever the hdmi only one had.

  • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If I was AMD I’d tell them to suck my ass and reverse engineer that shit anyway. Unfortunately I’m not AMD, lol.

    • Atemu@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t need to RE it; they have access to the full spec and everything for their Windows drivers anyways. They’d open themselves up for litigation if they implemented this behind the forum’s back though and that’s something AMD (understandably) simply won’t do.

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They could hire dedicated teams that has no access to the full spec to RE it and it should be above board, as long as it’s done right ofc.

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hopefully AMD start doing what Intel does and including a DP -> HDMI 2.1 converter in the card itself. There are already third party adapters that work reasonably well with existing AMD GPUs, especially on Linux. If they had their own implementation they could iron out the quirks and driver issues and get something that should be equivalent to real HDMI 2.1.