Damn now I have to boycott an entire video connector.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      9 months ago

      If TVs would have it that would be nice. I use a PC attached to my TV and don’t have the option.

      • Faceman🇦🇺@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        9 months ago

        There was a panasonic (I think it was them) that had a Displayport connection, but that didn’t last.

        I suspect HDMI threatened to cut their licence if they kept putting DP on the TVs.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        TVs are not very good displays for computers. You have to go through a bunch of settings to turn off as much image processing as possible. Even then, the latency will still be higher than a gaming monitor. You have to disable overscan, which always seems to be on by default even though it’s only useful for CRTs and makes absolutely no sense for a digital display with digital signals. Also, I’ve never had a single TV that will actually go into standby when commanded. It will just stay on with a no signal message when the computer turns off the output.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Mine doesn’t have any of those problems. The only thing I had to do was ensure the input selection was set to PC.

          But then I’m using it 90% to stream stuff that is web only and some occasional gaming with the bonus of being able to fill out forms, Google and do light note taking without getting a different device. My alternatives would be needing a laptop or tablet along with some streaming device.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          “Monitors” are smaller.

          And the minimum cost of entry to anything reasonably sized is double to triple. Changing some settings is well worth it.

    • jackalope@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why?

      I’ve never understood the difference other than I get the vague sense display port is associated with apple.

      • WolfLink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        104
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        DisplayPort is designed to give your GPU a fast connection to your display. HDMI is designed to give the copyright holder of the video you are watching a DRM protected connection to your display to make piracy harder.

        This is why DisplayPort is better for the consumer but HDMI is more popular because the device manufacturers are really in charge of what you get.

        • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          9 months ago

          DP has HDCP too. I get what you’re saying, but there was more profiteering involved even than what you describe.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          HDMI is designed to give the copyright holder of the video you are watching a DRM protected connection

          Care to explain how one feature added years in defines what the entire thing is “designed for”? HDMI had nothing related to drm for several years

      • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Aside from DisplayPort having more bandwidth, as someone else pointed out, HDMI is consumer video garbage. DisplayPort was designed for use as a computer display. Also, HDMI Forum is a cartel that charges ridiculous licensing fees for their proprietary interface. VESA is a standards body and their licensing costs are much more reasonable.

      • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        HDMI 1.4 has a less than half the bitrate of the oldest DisplayPort standard. And regarding the newer HDMI standard: read the article. The forum are being jerks…

      • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The only disadvantage of display port that I can think of is that it’s harder to find capture devices (or at least Linux compatible ones) that have display port. Generally no one cares about that stuff though. I use capture cards because I sometimes do stuff involving other computers and it’s 1000 times more convenient to have a vlc window floating around with the display output.

        No one seems to have this use case besides me, I’m just glad that there exist capture cards fast enough to do playback in real-time and not a 5 second delay. I don’t stream.

        • Dudewitbow
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          the reason why its harder is because devices with display port can basically nayively record without a capture card. other devices where it would be common like consoles design it to be plugged into a tv. and those in the tv business and console business are either in, or fold into the HDMI consortum standards.

          this mindset will never change till basically most tv manufacturers put displayport on tvs

      • Nevrome Glitchard@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        Français
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Me neither. I play at 1440p/120hz. Both cables can manage that resolution and frame rate.

        The only difference I get is when I use DisplayPort and leave my computer alone for 20 mins, the GPU goes to sleep and the monitor won’t display anything although I hear background apps/games running.

        Without changing any settings, using a HDMI cable solved that.

        HDMI it is.

        • Dudewitbow
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          its starts i matter more when you do more exotic connections. display port is more friendly for merging it into another form factor, and between the two, the only one capable of tech like daisy chaining monitors.

          hdmi also requires a licensing fee to use, which technically add a cost to the end user.

        • Uninvited Guest@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          In a multi monitor set up, when a screen connected to display port goes to sleep my computer treats it like that screen was disconnected - meaning all my open applications get shoved from one screen to another. I’ve also used HDMI to avoid that.

          • Klaymore@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            On the other hand, when I turn off my second monitor (on HDMI), all my apps stay on that screen, meaning I have to manually move them over to my main monitor where I can actually see them.

            And if my DisplayPort monitor is off and everything’s on my second monitor, when I turn the main one back on all the windows go back to where they used to be (al least on Plasma Wayland).

            • Uninvited Guest@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s interesting, though not my experience. If a monitor is turned off then the PC picks up that it has disconnected.

              The scenario I described occurs when the OS (Windows) sleeps the screen after inactivity. It could be a function of the laptop, of the monitor, or of the cables. In my set up using HDMI over display port solves it.

          • midori@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Ugh, so THAT’S why it happens? It’s quite irritating, and only rebooting seems to fix it.

        • WolfLink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Even if HDMI manages the same framerate it will still have a higher latency.