930
Valve: HDMI Forum Continues to Block HDMI 2.1 for Linux
(www.heise.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
930 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
85521 readers
5986 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Console manufacturers all just need to switch to displayport to encourage tv manufacturers to do the same. No one's going to not buy a ps6 or steam machine because they have to use a little dp-hdmi adapter, but they might be a little more likely to choose a tv that doesn't need an adapter over one that does
Sony would probably create a proprietary standard before they'd switch to displayport.
What about shipping an adaptor? DP to HDMI for the transition?
Can dp even translate to HDMI with a "dumb" adapter?
DP can do HDMI natively.
HDMI needs an active adapter to support DP.
yes, i have a dp to hdmi 2.1 cable that cost like 35€. it works fine except each time i get up from my chair the screen flashes white. and no VRR.
I have a 25ft HDMI cable that works fine for everything except sometimes when I open a new tab in Firefox, the screen temporarily goes blank/no-signal for a couple seconds. Also sometimes when the dryer turns on.
my friend has had this issue for years, when he turns on a fan his monitor turns off for a second
Yes, DP converts to HDMI natively. But because HDMI has so much proprietary BS built in, going from HDMI to DP requires an active adapter which strips out the proprietary BS.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dp+to+hdmi
Here's an already filled in Google search for you.
Oh wow thanks! Alright everyone. We can all get off lemmy now. Turns out we can just look everything up online. No need to waste time talking to each other. Ugh!
Or you can simply look up the answer to a super basic question in the same amount of time it takes to ask it in a forum so that you're contributing to the conversation, rather than lazily putting it on other people to answer.
You can't look up everything online, but you can look up basic information fundamental to the conversation you're in.
Or choosing to ask a question means they actually want to hear what other people have to say and not whatever AI slop the major search engines have become
where's the Google in this search?
Where it belongs
(Out of the picture)
The duck ate it.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=dp+to+hdmi
friends don't let friends use google.
Yes.
I have a secondary monitor running on a unpowered, dumb (and cheap), DP to HDMI driver right now
~~Can't be a passive adapter or else that would mean DisplayPort and HDMI have to protocol compatible. If they were then we wouldn't have this issue.~~ Apparently I was wrong.
Nope. DisplayPort can adapt to HDMI or DVI passively. It won’t support the proprietary bullshit like HDCP, but it will be able to display video just fine. Pin 13 on DP is specifically used to detect adapters, so the output device can automatically change to using an HDMI protocol if it detects an HDMI adapter. This technically requires a dual-mode DP port to automatically adapt, but the vast majority of DP connectors produced in the past several years are dual-mode.
But going the other direction (HDMI to DP) requires an active adapter, to strip out all of the proprietary HDMI-only bullshit.
Technically no, it has to specifically have Dual-Mode support (DP++). In practice most of them do, at least in the consumer space.
If it doesn't then you need an active adapter.
Phone companies succeeded in killing 3.5mm audio port with that strategy. So why not, for once, use it for a good cause?
Good point!
I agree with the sentiment but we're dealing with a chicken and egg problem. If no TVs have DisplayPort, who would buy a console that can't be used with their TV?
TVs are starting to come with DisplayPort already in the form of USB-C alt mode.
Not really. Both could start shipping both connectors, except if I'm unaware of some licensing issue over that?
If I'm a TV manufacturer, I have less incentive to have both connector types because it increases cost and complexity while only appealing to a very small subset of users. It will take leadership at those companies to take a bit of a leap of faith that the effort is valuable as a long term plan because it will take other manufacturers to make the ecosystem. Couple that with the fact that leadership at companies tend to not be enthusiasts or technically inclined and it makes it difficult, but not impossible. I really hope we can move electronics towards DisplayPort just so it's an open standard instead of the HDMI for-profit model.
As long as the manufacturers are competing against each other, that's never going to happen.
The "gamer" consumer demographic has some of the most whiny, entitled vocal minorities. They're going to endlessly complain about the next generation of console needing a special cable/dongle to connect to their TV, one of the manufacturers are going to fold, and then the other one is going to walk back the lack of HDMI because they don't want to lose sales to their competitor.
I mean we don't use coax/channel 3 any longer. Just do it.
We bitched about usbc but I love the standard connector
It bothers me. There are too many things that are either not standards-complient or support different parts of the USB feature set that compatibility is a wildcard.
I carry a large backup battery when I travel for work. It can keep my laptop going under load all day, allowing me to not care at all about proximity to outlets when working. It also allows me to painlessly recharge phones by just handing it to someone.
Last week, I was running something from someone else's laptop (enterprise HP, like mine, but different model). It got low, so I pulled out my battery. Plug it in... No power. I could see the voltage fluctuations of it negotiating, but nothing after that.
Well how do YOU connect your NES up to your TV then???
I have actually been looking at modding an NES with HDMI (and other goodies) as a small project. There are various kits out there.
That was something they could actually market to the consumer as a necessary upgrade, though.
Going from HDMI 2.1 to DisplayPort 2.1a doesn't offer anything other than higher bandwidth, and not even high-end PCs are capable of pushing resolutions at high enough framerates for that bandwidth to have been the limiting factor for games.
Because of that lack of perceptible benefit to them, the optics of replacing HDMI on consumer devices that are meant to be connected to TVs isn't going to be good. Even if it's an objectively better standard from a technical perspective, it will just come across to consumers as an unnecessary change meant to push their TVs towards planned obsolescence.
They're going to complain about it, the media will pick up on the story and try to turn it into a scandal, and then legislators and regulators will step in and make decisions based on limited understanding of the technical reasons. By that point, one of the console manufacturers will have been pressured into backing down and promise to keep HDMI in their next-gen console, and the other ones will have followed suit because they don't want to lose sales over it.
The only way console manufacturers are going to stay united in kicking HDMI to the curb is if the organization behind HDMI pulls a Unity move and starts charging royalties to the manufacturers for every time a consumer plugs the console into a TV.
Ah, the Apple strategy of forcing a standard.
EDIT: By that I mean when Apple started putting USB (1.0) on their Macs back in the day to encourage more USB accessories. Not their proprietary (what was the old iPod connector called?) or lightning BS.
You’re thinking of firewire, and that was not proprietary. Sony came up with that. I had a mini disc player with a firewire port. And thunderbolt, which is what they use now, is an evolution on firewire made by Apple, Sony, and Intel.
Both firewire and thunderbolt are superior to USB.
I have an old iMac that I use as a Plex server, and it has a firewire 800 port and a thunderbolt 1 port, both of which I use for a couple of very old external drive enclosures. Sure as hell beats USB 2.0.
The first time I ever used a firewire port, I thought it was black magic compared to usb. It was INSANELY faster and super consistent speed. It was the same level of wow as the first time I used an SSD vs HDD.
Compared to the top speed of USB 2.0, firewire 400 was actually faster in that regard (due to a consistent transfer rate rather than a variable one), and I’ll explain where the true performance came in to play, and how thunderbolt also has this amazing feature:
When usb connections begin to data transfer, they started at 0 Kb and slowly speed up to the maximum transfer rate. Then it slows down before completion. FireWire (and is successor, Thunderbolt) maintain a consistent data transfer speed. It begins at that transfer rate, and ends at that transfer rate. This is especially good if you’re moving around a large amount of small files.
Also, firewire 400 already beat out USB 2.0’s 382 Mb/s transfer rate. Firework 800 more than doubled it, and thunderbolt 1 started at 1.5 GB a second. We’re at thunderbolt 5 now, and I stopped keeping track of the data rates because they were so blazingly fast.
One drawback, however, is that firewire cables, and subsequently thunderbolt cables, are both extremely expensive and not very durable. They contain a lot more twisted copper wires, and tend to wear out faster. USB cables are nearly indestructible.
Additionally, firewire (and thunderbolt) are also a networking protocol. You can create an ad-hoc LAN just with firewire or thunderbolt cable cables. This is natively built into macOS, but, on Linux, it requires some sorcery to make it work. With a Mac, and an emergency, you can boot your Mac with a damaged hard to drive remote remotely from another functional Mac just by using a thunderbolt cable (or a firewire cable). It’s a neat trick, and has saved my ass more times than I can count.
One final awesome feature of thunderbolt 2+ is that a natively carries DisplayPort signals since switching to the USB 3 plug standard.
I was thinking of the 30 Pin Dock Connector, which was proprietary, but it looks like it used both FireWire and USB protocols.
Apple was known for helping propagate FireWire too.
Leave it to me to only consider the male end of the connector 😜
No, youngin’ they’re talking about USB. The original iMac was USB-only specifically to force the adoption of USB keyboards and mice.
This is what I was responding to. Also, they only sold that iMac for about a year, after which point iMacs came with FireWire ports.
And I’m in my 40s. I’m not a “youngin’”.