As far as I am aware, after having done exhaustive research on this, its licensing costs and popularity. Display port simply isn't popular enough. The vast majority of TV manufacturers (not brands mind you, many white label their manufacturing to different brands) also make monitors, and adoption of HDMI across both tvs and monitors not only was much higher, it was overall cheaper in cost since you could share the same components across lines. This being driven by cheaper licensing costs for accessory manufacturers (like blu ray players).

Its also easier to implement, if I recall correctly

This is the essential core of it, as I have come to understand it anyway.

Wanting to know what I'm missing r/e: licensing costs.

Wikipedia [0] states:

> VESA, the creators of the DisplayPort standard, state that the standard is royalty-free to implement.

And VESA's website [1] lists Samsung, Sony and LG as being members already, so they've already paid. What am I missing here?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Cost

[1]: https://vesa.org/about-vesa/member-companies/

> What am I missing here?

Historical context

[citation needed]

I absolutely love my Aorus 48" OLED-type display (w/ DisplayPort).

I tried a 48" TFT-type television (attempting use as a computer display) and the refresh rate just wasn't there, along with typical backlight splotching (but it cost a fifth as much, so...).

My only caution is OLED can experience burn-in (unlike the smaller Aorus 45" using a VA-type panel), but it is otherwise a much better experience

> My only caution is OLED can experience burn-in

The other limitation is lower brightness than miniLED monitors, around 30-60% of the nits in SDR. Whether that matters obviously depends on the ambient light or reflective surfaces near you.

For me, because I'm next to a big window and already squinting at my 400 nits IPS monitor, a < 300 nits OLED is a non-starter, but a 600 nits in SDR, IPS miniLED, is ideal.

This limitation should be temporary however because there are some high nit OLED TVs coming on the market in 2025 so bright OLED 27-43" monitors will likely follow.

The new LG panels are bright enough. I think they’re called 4th generation WOLED.

330 nits in SDR is good relative to other OLED monitors and good enough for most indoor environments but not good enough for my indoor environment. Windows are too big and not tinted, just too much ambient light for anything below 500 nits.

Dell offers a 43" display with speakers and DP, HDMI, and USB. It costs three times as much as a TV, but it is highly-rated kit if you can afford it.

I would rather have a quality large display with speakers and DP than a TV. The only argument in favour of buying a large TV for coding is cost.

Aorus/Gigabyte is also making their monitors into smart TVs. The next size up is a Google TV.

https://www.aorus.com/en-us/monitors/s55u

New Hisense TVs have USB-C DisplayPort support. Pretty cool, but realistically I don't see how it's different from HDMI from a usefulness standpoint.

Edit: It is cool I can plug my phone or laptop into the TV with one cable, no adapters, and get some power as well. For some reason it didn't work with my Steam Deck which was strange.

I think it helps with the HDMI 2.1 licensing bullshit.

This. I was reading about some of the ugly hacks Valve has had to get around to use 2.1 on the steam machine. They (HDMI consortium, whatever its called) won't let you use 2.1 if your video drivers are FOSS. Since SM has open drivers for the AMD card it's leading to subobtimal video output at certain resolution/framerate combos (4K@120fps? Something like that), and they can't legally advertise support for HDMI2.1.

Depends what speed their USB-C port supports.

And annoyingly you can do USB-C to DP but not the other direction.

I can't be the only one that hooks up my computer, with a graphics card, to my TV

There absolutely are ways to do this, some motherboards have a DP-In connector that is routed to the USB4 ports. One example would be the ProArt X670E.

The cheapest one nowadays is probably the PSVR 2 adapter

Thanks. For some reason when googling and searching amazon I only found "unidirectional" ones and going the other way. I fucking hate search

> 4K@60Hz

I saw some giant TV on LTT recently which has a DP port.

A DisplayPort Port you say?

No, they said "DP port", not "DP Port".

DisplayPort is a standard. A DisplayPort port is a port that follows the DisplayPort standard.

As opposed to the DisplayPort cable, DisplayPort standard, or DisplayPort encoding that's sent over the wire, yes. This isn't a PIN number situation despite the stutter.

I tried to buy a good 32 inch tv. This is also hard. I need up going a little matter and even then, the utterly trash built in speakers frustrate the hell out of me.

32" is squarely "PC monitor" territory and there are now many good options even w/ OLED. No built-in speakers.

A 32" 4k 240hz OLED computer monitor + smart TV HDMI dongle + external speakers should work fine. Only point I would check is if the remote that comes with the dongle can turn on the monitor.

Why would you want such a thing? HDMI 2.1 does HDR 4k @ 120hz without compression. The entire TV ecosystem uses HDMI. If you want to connect a PC to a TV they always have at least 1 HDMI out, and some have a couple.

Because HDMI 2.1 uses a proprietary protocol that's not implemented in any free OS[0]. If you want to use HDMI 2.1 features right now, your only option is to use a non-free OS like Windows or MacOS.

[0]: This came up recently with Valve: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46220488

from a purely technical point of view i do wish HDMI 2.1 was able to gain traction. On a couple of things I own that do actually use it, its an actual noticeable improvement and I feel does a better job than DisplayPort.

Granted, I suspect quite strongly the next wave of consolidation is going to continue the trend of being around USB-C, since the spec should have the bandwidth to handle any video / audio protocols for quite some time. Matter of time until that happens IMO.

It also lets you have a single cord that could theoretically be your power cord and your A/V cord.

From a purely technical standpoint display port is a better standard. HDMI couldn't get their shit together to do anything with USBC and thus all USBC to HDMI converter cables run display port internally.

Display port already allows multiple video streams, ausiostreams ... Why do we need a closed standard to also do this?!?!

Not really. That same link talks about how Intel and nvidia drivers can provide HDMI 2.1 on Linux but it is via their non-free firmware blob.

AMD doesn't (can't? won't?) do the same but there is a workaround: a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter using a particular chip running hacked firmware. That'll get you 4K 120 Hz with working FreeSync VRR.

https://forum.level1techs.com/t/it-is-possible-to-4k-120-hdr...

I don't remember where,but somebody explained that the adapters also have some kind of limitation. I can't remember what but they went into deep details and the whole thing is revolting. Governments should protect open source.

Some of us would like our expensive hardware to work without hacked third party dongles.

All of us would like our expensive hardware to work without hacked third party dongles. But given that this isn't possible with AMD open source drivers at the present time, this is the best we'll get for now.

It's also a piece of shit that will negotiate whatever it wants with your non free OS instead of giving you unmolested RGB...

Oh, I know this one. It was recently on the HN front page. Open source software stacks are locked out of high end pixel clocks.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46220488

There was the 55" Alienware OLED monitor, but unfortunately it never received a follow-up after its 2019 release.

> What I'd really like is a TV with DisplayPort.

Issues with HDCP support maybe?

DisplayPort supports all HDCP versions, so that shouldn't be a problem.

i would really like a tv with usb c. so, i can directly connect my phone/ tablet and cast directly

You can buy projector and have 120 inches screen in 160 inches wide room. And it is also unbreakable screen, useful especially if you have kids.

How far away from the screen do you need to sit though? Isn’t that too wide? I have kids but I’ve never seen them almost break a TV lol

"Too wide" is in the eye of the beholder. I typically sit eight feet from a 130" ultra-wide projection screen. That felt enormous the first time I used it, but after a decade it seems "normal" and I occasionally think about going bigger.

It’s nice but OLED contrast is very hard to beat, and if you’re one of those folks who insist that ‘a white wall is good enough’ then it’s not even the same ballpark of image quality.

Are cinema screens bad in contrast? Do you need a pixel peeping while watch conpressed streaming show?

With awful blacks, sure.

You consider cinema screen as awful?

Different tariff rates for TVs and computer monitors.

I have a NEC P462 display with DP among other things. It's about that size you said, so maybe you're right, but my first thought is that there's gotta be bigger displays for digital signage, and why wouldn't they have DP if this one does? NEC and Samsung both make these types of displays, IIRC, not sure who else.

I'd pay way more than $100 for that port since the HDMI forum won't let my Linux PC with AMD graphics do 4K@120Hz without compression.