I sort of figured that HDMI stupidity was strategically a good thing as it sort of brought the dynamic of the HDMI consortium and VESA. specifically how they treat the end users, more to the public eye.

That is, more people being subtly pushed to using display port is not a bad thing.

I was faintly surprised that my recent monitor purchase came with a displayport cable.

Didn't help connecting it to my Macbook, but still..

DisplayPort has been running the best PC high end monitors for a long while. HDMI OTOH has been in A/V land (DRM management).

Don't most monitors ship with DisplayPort cables? All of mine have. HDMI is more popular with TVs/home theater systems.

Outside of the ones built into laptops, all my "monitors" for the last decade have been TVs, just because they tend to be cheaper at a "price to size" level.

None of them ever seem to have DisplayPort.

Yeah TVs typically don't have DP, because extra HDMI ports are usually more valuable in a home theater setting. Game consoles, receivers, video players all have HDMI and don't have DisplayPort, meanwhile every graphics card and laptop usually supports both, so having an extra HDMI port ends up being more versatile.

There is supposed to be some sort of conspiracy where the HDMI consortium actively tries to keep display port off of TV's.

Not sure if I buy it, how would that even work? lower licensing fees when no display port? I suspect the real answer is that HDMI managed to capture the market for digital video links and while display port is better it is not enough better for people to want to make the incompatibility jump.

But.... Conversely it does almost make sense. because finding DP on a TV is super rare, nobody is even trying. Historically you would find all sorts of rareish connectors on TV's(component video, s-video) so.. conspiracy... perhaps.

DisplayPort is missing a lot of features that are meaningless in a desktop setup but important in a home theater setup. That's the only reason.

Aren't pretty much all TV manufacturers on the HDMI consortium? You don't really need any more conspiracy than that to keep DP off TVs.

> they tend to be cheaper at a "price to size" level

Make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges, unless size is really the only thing that matters to you.

I didn't follow this story much: how exactly did they get past the legal hurdles? Or there never actually were any hurdles, just sabre rattling?

Purely rumor, but supposedly Valve put tons of pressure on them (no idea by what means, again this is all rumor) because they wanted support for the Steam Machine release.

any reason why we are using hdmi over display port?

The vast majority of the TVs only come with HDMI .. not even good enough analog inputs anymore..

I have been told (but not confirmed) that is mandated by the HDMI mob. If you want HDMI on your TV, it cannot also have DP.

Which is kind of funny. At least, to my mind this has associated HDMI-only with the budget option (TVs), and DP with the premium tier (monitors).

I'm pretty sure TVs go higher in price than monitors - although professional monitors do put up a fight.

This can only be true for consumer-grade stuff. Even then I just guess the manufacturers kind of cheap out.

I have a dumb-ish Samsung Hotel TV / commercial TV at home. It has DP.

I want a TV with DP. Do you have a recommended source for where to pick up commercial TVs?

I live in Germany and I got mine from https://www.visunext.de/

What really drives me nuts is smart TVs with 100mbps Ethernet connections. When I bought a tv we looked in vain for gigabit Ethernet.

It is futile to expect the TV to be smart and support all sorts of apps and hardware only to be abandoned by the manufacturer years down the line. The only correct way to buy a TV imho is to hunt for a dumb but excellent display properties and get a streaming device such as Google TV Streamer, Apple TV or DIY x86 HTPC.

>DIY x86 HTPC

ARM slander was not warranted

Are there DIY Arm boards that make a good HTPC? Do they have hardware video decoding?

TVs are made with BOM of like 10$ for the SoC, so it's the cheapest crap available.

Then again - none of the streaming services are streaming at anything remotely close to 100Mbps so I doubt they consider it necessary to upgrade to GbE.

Unfortunately we're the weird ones for wanting to stream >100mbps content.

My 2020 LG CX has a USB 2.0 port and I get ~300mbps with a gigabit adapter, if the TV you ended up with has a USB port it's worth a try.

What >100mbps content is there? 4K bluray just needs a bigger buffer to handle >100mbps spikes (Kodi for example offers this) and Moonlight/Apollo/etc is well into diminishing returns

4k blu-ray remuxes regularly break 100mbps for long enough to cause problems on my TV, unless I use either wifi or the USB adapter. Others have done investigations showing in some movies the bitrate will exceed 100mbps for minutes at a time.

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/PleX/comments/eoa03e/psa_100_mbps_i...

With what feels like weekly posts about someone being shocked their smart TV is showing them ads, I'm surprised you looked for gigabit for your TV.

I've had a smart TV for over 5 years and never connected it to the Internet.

I connected my Samsung TV to the WiFi for the first time two weeks ago because I wanted to play with the multi-screen-view thing, and it didn't appear to work with two HDMI cables.

It has not shut up asking me to update the fucking thing. Every time I turn the TV on, about twenty seconds later an update prompt will pop up, and it will not go away until I actively dismiss it. This happened even after disconnecting and forgetting the wifi. Never again.

Unless you're on the absolute newest stuff with DisplayPort 2.1, HDMI 2.1 has more bandwidth than DP1.4. That'll be Nvidias 2000 through 4000 series. No DisplayPort 2.1 until the RTX 5000s.

And then monitors released during this time generally do the same too.

Also if you want to use it through a capture card, HDMI ones are way more common and cheaper

AMD Radeon 7000 and 9000 series all support DisplayPort 2.1

6000 however does not but supports HDMI 2.1 (no yet on Linux).

Not to mention TVs have been pretty much always been HDMI-only and they are the only realistic option for a living room sized monitor.

Some people have TVs or displays that only use HDMI. I personally wouldn't recommend HDMI if DisplayPort is available, but if HDMI is your only option, then having it work properly will be important.

My monitor has 1 displayport and 2 hdmi and I have 2 computers I use with it. They can't share the displayport. All comparable monitors (last time I checked) have the same. So it'd be nice if both worked.

For one, DisplayPort doesn’t support HDR output

The cable length limitations are also a pain in the ass for not-uncommon A/V system configurations. 6' recommended max, and the best you might get working stably if the device and cable gods smile on you is 15'. 6' is the lower edge of acceptable for just about any A/V system setup (in practice it means your devices need to be within about a meter of the screen's port[s], which is pretty close) and even 15' is still too short to be useful for, say, a projector, or a "the A/V receiver or HDMI switch is over in that cabinet, the TV is on this wall across the room" situation.

HDMI goes 25'+, no problem.

For 4k at 60Hz, you'd need HDMI 2.0 or DP 1.2. At those speeds, both kinds of cable should be able to reach 25 feet, and I can find reputable brands selling both kinds at the length.

> HDMI goes 25'+, no problem.

Yep. That's likely because that's an active cable. Active DisplayPort cables exist, too. Here is one vendor selling active UHBR10 cables [0]. If you don't NEED UHBR, then you'll find your selection to be much, much larger. I've been using some Monoprice-branded 50 and 100 ft active fiber-optic HBR3 DisplayPort cables for years with no problem.

[0] <https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/displayport-cables/c...>

That can't be right. I'm reading this comment on an HDR monitor over DP right now.

Don't all USB-C video outputs use DP alt mode too, with an HDMI adapter at the end? And they can do HDR.

Do you mean in practice, or something? DP definitely supports HDR, and it seems to work fine for me.

If true, not supporting HDR is a feature

displayport has supported HDR10 since 2016

and displayport 2.0, since 2019, has supported all the same variations (hdr10+, dolby vision) that HDMI does

This seems wrong to me? I use it to do so every day.

Confidently incorrect.

My main monitor is 4K 240 hz HDR and it works great on my DisplayPort cable, especially the HDR.

Hoping they'll also add VRR - that's the one thing that isn't currently working with my DP->HDMI adapter setup, 4K@120Hz already works fine.