Difference between using hdmi vs. display port?

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Sorry, I'm kind of a newb when it comes to the latest display "stuff". So I'm deciding between these two mobos:
asus P8H67-M EVO
Intel DH67BL

The Evo has a display port in addition to the rest, whereas the intel board does not. What's the benefit? I want to finally get myself a dual display setup later. I want it to be two 1920x1200 monitors. Obviously this will not be for gaming but for productivity. Will having the extra display port help in any way?

Also, does hdmi support only up to 1920x1080??

 

[Kalnos]

HDMI can be 1900x1200 no problem. HDMI can also carry audio which makes it a clear winner over DVI since they're very close in video quality (HDMI should edge DVI here too I believe?).

DisplayPort is just a newer type of connection, trying to phase out VGA and DVI, it also carries both audio and video.

It looks like you will also need a HDMI/DVI splitter, or to just use 1 HDMI and 1 DVI cable if you're running dual monitors, as there is only one of each. (I'm assuming you're using no GPU)

FYI on Evo specs: Supports HDMI with max. resolution 1920 x 1200@60Hz and Supports DVI with max. resolution 1920 x 1200@60Hz

 

[Snowknight26]

HDMI can also carry audio which makes it a clear winner over DVI since they're very close in video quality (HDMI should edge DVI here too I believe?).

Video outputted by either would be identical.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

FYI on Evo specs: Supports HDMI with max. resolution 1920 x 1200@60Hz and Supports DVI with max. resolution 1920 x 1200@60Hz

Oh yeah ... shit, I read that earlier and then forgot. I thought I read somewhere else that HDMI is only up to 1080p.

Anyway, thanks for the help. Yes, assumption is correct that I am not planning on having a discrete gpu. Is there any reason to prefer using a splitter as opposed to using one of each of a different type of connector? I'm thinking employing one of each connector, say DVI and HDMI, would be the easiest.

 

[Ducman69]

From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for DisplayPort to exist.

HDMI 1.0 had a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, yes, but HDMI is constantly being updated and now does 3D and 4096×2160 without issue. And while there is mini-displayport, there is also mini-HDMI in the 1.4 standard.

The main reason displayport exists is for licensing reasons. From a consumer standpoint, you could give a crap, its a matter of pennies for the license. But to manufacturers, 10 cents a machine times tens of thousands of computers is a huge savings. Apple also figured out how to use this non-standard to either encourage them to buy their overpriced LCD to connect to their computer or buy an equally overpriced adapter. Nice business model.

So, alas, we have another stupid standard so we have to deal with more cables, adapters, and crap so that Dell and Apple can save money which they don't just pass on to us.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for DisplayPort to exist.

HDMI 1.0 had a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, yes, but HDMI is constantly being updated and now does 3D and 4096×2160 without issue. And while there is mini-displayport, there is also mini-HDMI in the 1.4 standard.

The main reason displayport exists is for licensing reasons. From a consumer standpoint, you could give a crap, its a matter of pennies for the license. But to manufacturers, 10 cents a machine times tens of thousands of computers is a huge savings. Apple also figured out how to use this non-standard to either encourage them to buy their overpriced LCD to connect to their computer or buy an equally overpriced adapter. Nice business model.

So, alas, we have another stupid standard so we have to deal with more cables, adapters, and crap so that Dell and Apple can save money which they don't just pass on to us.

I wish I could "like" or "become a fan" of post such as this. DP had an edge over HDMI for a while, but now it's level playing field (I think). I really cant remember which has more bandwidth. DP 1.2 or HDMI 1.4a

I did the calculation a while ago and DP 1.2 can get up to 7680x1440@60Hz off of one DP connection. It can also do 7680x1600@58Hz but that's an odd refresh rate and i don't think 30"rs would like that (I don't have an nVidia card to check, someone with a 30"r and an nVidia card should check if it's possible).

EDIT:Also, DP1.2 can daisy chain monitors together. This is due to the insane bandwidth and protocols that have been designed for them. But it doesn't matter because neither MST HUBs or DP 1.2 Monitors have been released. : (

 

[omniscence]

It should be noted, that even HDMI 1.4 does not support 1080p60 in 3D mode, only 1080p24 and 720p60. That is a serious drawback for 3D gaming. Further, while HDMI may support WUXGA resolutions (2560x1600), none of the available displays actually supports this. A single DisplayPort 1.2 can feed two displays at that resolution (or four at 1920x1200), but that is also not yet available in displays. Also DP can do 2560x1600@120Hz, which HDMI is not capable of. DisplayPort can support audio streams, too, but I do not know, if there are any displays that make use of this.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

For everyone interested: http://www.emsai.net/projects/widescreen/bandwidth/

Bandwidth Calculator per resolution and refresh rate.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

So since the specs of the Evo say that the DVI and HDMI ports are limited to 1920x1200 resolution, does that mean that it's the older HDMI 1.0? Or is it simply the limitation from the H67 chip itself? If it's the chip, then why does it allow for 2560x1600 for DisplayPort?

 

[brumwald]

From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for DisplayPort to exist.

HDMI 1.0 had a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, yes, but HDMI is constantly being updated and now does 3D and 4096×2160 without issue. And while there is mini-displayport, there is also mini-HDMI in the 1.4 standard.

The main reason displayport exists is for licensing reasons. From a consumer standpoint, you could give a crap, its a matter of pennies for the license. But to manufacturers, 10 cents a machine times tens of thousands of computers is a huge savings. Apple also figured out how to use this non-standard to either encourage them to buy their overpriced LCD to connect to their computer or buy an equally overpriced adapter. Nice business model.

So, alas, we have another stupid standard so we have to deal with more cables, adapters, and crap so that Dell and Apple can save money which they don't just pass on to us.

From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for HDMI to exist.

The only reason for why HDMI exists is because stupid consumers wasn't trusted with having multiple cables between their dvd/blu-ray and their HDTV.

Displayport on the other hand has some serious technical advantages and that goes way beyond the specs and the painted pig that is HDMI. And no. HDMI 1.4 doesn't come with a bandwidth increase (just features (such as higher resolutions given lower framerate etc.)) and displayport has around 70% more bandwidth than HDMI - but thats beside the point. Displayport is truly superior in every way, HDMI is just DVI and displayport is the next generation. It also allows for keeping compatibility with VGA - which is important even though I guess you might think it's retarted.

And no. HDMI doesn't support 4k with 3D. It supports 4k and it supports 4D but not 4k 3D (would like kind of funny in 12 fps anyway ).

HDMI is the sorriest of excuse for a interconnect I've seen, ever. They took an aging interconnect at the end of it's life and made a new connector, exchanging analogue with audio, and called it a day. But thats kinda OK since it's targeted towards the living room where the demands are quite low. But it just doesn't cut it on the PC-side.


As for the OPs question. It doesn't really matter. Displayport can have issues just because it's knew. The only thing that might favor displayport is that it is more future-proof but thats kinda silly to take into account - it's just too far ahead.

 

[omniscence]

So since the specs of the Evo say that the DVI and HDMI ports are limited to 1920x1200 resolution, does that mean that it's the older HDMI 1.0? Or is it simply the limitation from the H67 chip itself? If it's the chip, then why does it allow for 2560x1600 for DisplayPort?

It just means there is only a single-link TMDS transceiver (no dual-link DVI) with the old standard. Of course, the newer, faster transceivers cost more. Even if it was HDMI 1.4, it may not support 4k resolutions. AFAIK there are no displays that accept more than 1920x1200 through HDMI. The only displays with more than that are semiprofessional displays, and those are usuallys equipped with DisplayPort and dual-link DVI.

 

[silent-circuit]

From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for HDMI to exist.

The only reason for why HDMI exists is because stupid consumers wasn't trusted with having multiple cables between their dvd/blu-ray and their HDTV.

Displayport on the other hand has some serious technical advantages and that goes way beyond the specs and the painted pig that is HDMI. And no. HDMI 1.4 doesn't come with a bandwidth increase (just features (such as higher resolutions given lower framerate etc.)) and displayport has around 70% more bandwidth than HDMI - but thats beside the point. Displayport is truly superior in every way, HDMI is just DVI and displayport is the next generation. It also allows for keeping compatibility with VGA - which is important even though I guess you might think it's retarted.

And no. HDMI doesn't support 4k with 3D. It supports 4k and it supports 4D but not 4k 3D (would like kind of funny in 12 fps anyway ).

HDMI is the sorriest of excuse for a interconnect I've seen, ever. They took an aging interconnect at the end of it's life and made a new connector, exchanging analogue with audio, and called it a day. But thats kinda OK since it's targeted towards the living room where the demands are quite low. But it just doesn't cut it on the PC-side.


As for the OPs question. It doesn't really matter. Displayport can have issues just because it's knew. The only thing that might favor displayport is that it is more future-proof but thats kinda silly to take into account - it's just too far ahead.

Apart from the typos, win.

 

[cabech984]

I'll keep rockin my DVI Cables!

 

[darklight_tr]

The one thing I hate about HDMI is the crappy connectors with nothing other than friction holding the connector in. At least DisplayPort uses a couple small pieces of metal to keep the connector from just falling out.

Ever seen a TV with vertically mounted HDMI ports on the bottom? Its a nightmare.

 

[Ducman69]

Get back with me when displayport actually implements some features that you could realistically use on a mainstream system.

By then, HDMI 1.5 will be out, and we'll have this conversation again about why we need an answer to a question that nobody asked with displayport. Displayport is supposed to carry a datasignal too, yet my Dell displayport monitor still needs a separate USB cable to be hooked up for the SDHC reader.

Standards are a good thing, and yes, it does suck to have to buy adapters that may or may not work properly to get a signal going from your computer to your receiver or TV because of mystical features or bandwidth that aren't used.

HDMI should go away, but not until its obsolete, and displayport sure as hell isn't the one to make a case for that.

There were immediately obvious good reasons to switch from VGA to DVI and from DVI to HDMI, but I see no case for switching from HDMI to displayport right now using real world mainstream examples.

 

[brumwald]

Get back with me when displayport actually implements some features that you could realistically use on a mainstream system.

Since displayport is new and since all other interconnects actually have decent enough performance for all mainstream products you won't really get to see a big difference until displayport is considered mainstream enough to ditch compatibility with DVI/HDMI - or at least focus on displayport-only features.

And no, this discussion won't resurface once HDMI 1.5 or any newer addition of HDMI sees the light. HDMI is just technically inferior and it was never considered to be used on computers (but the fact that they just took DVI made compatibility between them easy and since HDMI is such a hype you will see PC-products with it even if it doesn't make any sense - people think it's better and therefor it sells better).
There really has never been a discussion to start with. Just uninformed consumers that get fooled by the HDMI hype.

But even today there are some great uses exclusive for displayport. Look att AMD/ATi, their cards can support 6 displays. Name a non-professional card that can drive 6 displays that doesn't have displayport (and there are many reasons for why you won't find one).

You can also daisy-chain displayport monitors now with displayport 1.2 implemented on ATis newer cards.

There were immediately obvious good reasons to switch from VGA to DVI and from DVI to HDMI, but I see no case for switching from HDMI to displayport right now using real world mainstream examples.

There are no reasons for going from DVI to HDMI for computer use (unless you happen to have a display with speakers (quite rare)). There are tons of reasons for going from DVI to displayport, most are not that obvious though and for normal use you won't see any difference.

And the reason for why you still want a USB cable to your monitor is probably because your monitor doesn't implement displayport 1.2, and before displayport 1.2 the auxiliary connection was limited to 1 Mbit/s which just doesn't cut it and in my opinion was quite a let down of displayport (but version 1.2 can handle 720 Mbit/s so thats much better and usable for a lot of stuff (such as card readers and USB)).

But even with displayport 1.2 manufacturers might cheap out and not implement it just because other interconnets don't support it. But that will most likely change when it's mainstream.

 

[Ducman69]

And no, this discussion won't resurface once HDMI 1.5 or any newer addition of HDMI sees the light. HDMI is just technically inferior and it was never considered to be used on computers (but the fact that they just took DVI made compatibility between them easy and since HDMI is such a hype you will see PC-products with it even if it doesn't make any sense - people think it's better and therefor it sells better).

Of course it was "meant" for computers as well. It took a DVI cable, a computing standard, and merged it with an audio cable as a new standard to merge home theater hardware with PC hardware under one happy unified double-rainbow so they could all hold hands and everyone was merry.

It resulted in using a single cable which to this day has sufficient resolution and audio-channels/quality and 3D capabilities to meet demand. To remove the PC from this playground again, in a word, SUCKS. My computer likes playing with his PS3, Wii, and Denon friends, and fact is that the HDTV market is MUCH larger than the PC display market and they are merging so should stay together and be driven by the larger market.

Look att AMD/ATi, their cards can support 6 displays. Name a non-professional card that can drive 6 displays that doesn't have displayport (and there are many reasons for why you won't find one).

You can also daisy-chain displayport monitors now with displayport 1.2 implemented on ATis newer lineups.

And the reason for why you still want a USB cable to your monitor is probably because your monitor doesn't implement displayport 1.2, and before displayport 1.2 the auxiliary connection was limited to 1 Mbit/s which just doesn't cut it and in my opinion was quite a let down of displayport (but version 1.2 can handle 720 Mbit/s so thats much better and usable for a lot of stuff (such as card readers and USB)).

But even with displayport 1.2 manufacturers might cheap out and not implement it just because other interconnets don't support it.

Just got back from Best Buy and was just overwhelmed with their selection of Displayport 1.2 HDTVs and monitors.

And you are right, the non-professional demand for being able to daisy chain six monitors together from a single input is and was OVERWHELMING.

Every time I plugged in an HDMI cable I said to myself, "Dammit, why can't I drive five more HDTVs with this single output! I HATE THIS!!! OMG!" and had to wash down a muscle relaxer with some vodka to calm my nerves.

 

[brumwald]

Of course it was "meant" for computers as well. It took a DVI cable, a computing standard, and merged it with an audio cable as a new standard to merge home theater hardware with PC hardware under one happy unified double-rainbow so they could all hold hands and everyone was merry.

So they took something old (DVI). Made it even worse and thought that would make something great for both worlds?
Can you tell me how to drive my three year old 2560x1600 display with HDMI?

It resulted in using a single cable which to this day has sufficient resolution and audio-channels/quality and 3D capabilities to meet demand. To remove the PC from this playground again, in a word, SUCKS. My computer likes playing with his PS3, Wii, and Denon friends, and fact is that the HDTV market is MUCH larger than the PC display market and they are merging so should stay together and be driven by the larger market.

You don't remove the PC from that playground. Displayport has something HDMI don't, the key here is in backward compatibility. Something that HDMI didn't keep for analogue connections - just because it wasn't meant for computer use.

Just got back from Best Buy and was just overwhelmed with their selection of Displayport 1.2 HDTVs and monitors.

And your point is? Displayport is the future (is that really so hard for you to understand?). And displayport isn't meant for HDTVs...

Btw. you mind telling me how to drive a 2560x1600 display (that exist on the market) natively with HDMI? (2560x1440 will suffice if it's easier for you). What was that you were talking about, availability?

And you are right, the non-professional demand for being able to daisy chain six monitors together from a single input is and was OVERWHELMING.

Every time I plugged in an HDMI cable I said to myself, "Dammit, why can't I drive five more HDTVs with this single output! I HATE THIS!!! OMG!" and had to wash down a muscle relaxer with some vodka to calm my nerves.

Well, since even getting three high resolution displays connected to a single card limit your choices quite a lot displayport sure is welcoming.

Again, you can relax. Your precious HDMI will live on for HDTVs.

 

[Ducman69]

Again, you can relax. Your precious HDMI will live on for HDTVs.

The problem is that computers and video cards are walking away from HDMI to save a few cents on licensing. Plenty of people would like to hook up their ol' lil' Mac Mini to their TV sets like I do w/ my Dell, but alas, mini-displayport shenanigans, boohoo.

Luckily its only about 5% of the market right now, so most laptops and computers have an HDMI out, but my new ATI card doesn't.

You can spend money on an adapter, but then have to pray that your receiver isn't confused and goes, wtf resolution and audio is this? 7.1 DTS? I dunno, make it stereo only or drop it all together.

 

[brumwald]

The problem is that computers and video cards are walking away from HDMI to save a few cents on licensing. Plenty of people would like to hook up their ol' lil' Mac Mini to their TV sets like I do w/ my Dell, but alas, mini-displayport shenanigans, boohoo.

Luckily its only about 5% of the market right now, so most laptops and computers have an HDMI out, but my new ATI card doesn't.

You can spend money on an adapter, but then have to pray that your receiver isn't confused and goes, wtf resolution and audio is this? 7.1 DTS? I dunno, make it stereo only or drop it all together.

Oh god. It's not because of licensing (thats just a bonus). It's because of the much better technical design. Also displayport can be used for the laptop display which has potential for a lot of savings compared to todays very aging interconnect.

 

[Ducman69]

Oh god.

Thank you for addressing me w/ such reverence, but I never claimed to be a deity. Call me Duc.

displayport can be used for the laptop display which has potential for a lot of savings compared to todays very aging interconnect.

OK, this I was not aware of. Can you elaborate on advantages of displayport over current internal connections for laptops, and what laptops are implementing this now?

 

[brumwald]

OK, this I was not aware of. Can you elaborate on advantages of displayport over current internal connections for laptops, and what laptops are implementing this now?

You don't seem to be aware of much in this topic... Please educate yourself on the subject before stating nonsense such as "From a consumer standpoint, there really is no reason for DisplayPort to exist.".

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-voltage_differential_signaling

The advantages over LVDS is in many cases the same as it is over HDMI. But the biggest advantage in a notebook is probably that you don't need a scaler. Thats of course one of the reasons for why apple uses displayport, they can strip their monitors from scalers and other expensive electronics that can just as well be handled by the graphic card (although for apple thats not something new (nor for many manufacturers of 30" monitors)).

Also it is of course great to have the same interface for internal and external displays. Especially in the case of displayport where they can even share the same output.

 

[Ducman69]

What nonsense! That is using a different kind of connector, and you haven't explained ANY advantage to how that affects the use of an external displayport adapter over an HDMI one. 99% of high-end laptops have HDMI outputs, why would they want a displayport output? Just saying "well obviously its great" doesn't make it so, Captain.

And if you are using Apple as an example of cost savings... that the consumer sees? Seriously now?

 

[brumwald]

What nonsense! That is using a different kind of connector, and you haven't explained ANY advantage to how that affects the use of an external displayport adapter over an HDMI one. 99% of high-end laptops have HDMI outputs, why would they want a displayport output? Just saying "well obviously its great" doesn't make it so, Captain.

I have explained lots of advantages. You can obviously not look beyond your own needs.
99% of high-end laptops don't have HDMI, maybe gaming-laptops but those are a joke anyway. Since VGA is very common among projectors (especially for presentation work (meaning pretty much all students for one, always cracks me up when someone with a macbook forgets the adapter to their presentation - it's worthless and certainly not portable if you have to carry adapters with you all the time)) . And I bet that not that many connect their laptop to their TV so having a HDMI port on a laptop is just retarted for most people (and in any case they probably wouldn't see any difference between HDMI or VGA - 1080p is such a low resolution anyway).

Displayport isn't that much better since it requires an adapter in pretty much all scenarios, but it is undoubtedly better than HDMI.

Me, I need nothing more than VGA. If anything I'd like to be able to run my 2560x1600 display from my laptop and in that case displayport is my only choice, but it's no biggie - why use the laptop when I'm at my desk anyway...

What is it about audio-support and an inferior connector that makes you so religiously fanatic about HDMI anyway?

And if you are using Apple as an example of cost savings... that the consumer sees? Seriously now?

Sigh. Whether apple forwards the savings to the consumer or not has nothing to do with displayport.

 

[janos666]

Some quick questions:
- Is HDMI 1.3 capable to carry 1920x1200@60Hz@36bit (I mean 12 bit/color)?
I am just wondering because the HDMI port's EDID on my display says it supports 12 bit/color. But I don't know if it really used or not (it's always "unknown"), so I use the DP connection which tells me the actual bit depth (and it's 10 bit/color).
- Does 1920x1200@60Hz@30bit (10 bit/color) fit in at least?

And another thing...
- Is 1920x1080@120Hz really impossible with HDMI 1.4?
I don't give a shłt for those 120Hz TN displays but there are some "affordable" plasma TVs with 3D Vision support now. Is it some kind of "limited 3D Vision support" which allows you to watch Blu-Ray's in 3D but won't let you play PC games in 3D at the native FullHD resolution?

 

[Ducman69]

I have explained lots of advantages. 99% of high-end laptops don't have HDMI, maybe gaming-laptops but those are a joke anyway.

You showed a different type of internal connector and have failed to demonstrate what the cost savings the CONSUMER would see or other benefits would be to using an external displayport connector on a desktop or laptop over a HDMI connector.

Here is a link to mainstream "premium" computers. How many non-Apple computers don't have a HDMI output? How many have a displayport output?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Laptop-...ps/pcmcat196200050015.c?id=pcmcat196200050015

Since VGA is very common among projectors (especially for presentation work...And I bet that not that many connect their laptop to their TV so having a HDMI port on a laptop is just retarted for most people (and in any case they probably wouldn't see any difference between HDMI or VGA.

Just a quick note, my projector at home for the game room, as well as my projector in the office we used to display our real-time client information for all the analysts are both Dell units and hooked up via HDMI. HDMI produces a noticeably crisper image than VGA, and there's no need for a separate audio cable.

If anything I'd like to be able to run my 2560x1600 display from my laptop and in that case displayport is my only choice

HDMI can do 2560x1600 if your monitor is HDMI 1.3 or greater compliant, which has been around since 2006, five years ago. If yours is the Dell 3008 30", the lack of full HDMI support was a dumb business decision, the kind I'm complaining about.

Sigh. Whether apple forwards the savings to the consumer or not has nothing to do with displayport.

Well, you said there was a cost savings, implying a significant one, and one that CONSUMERS (who cares about the business) would actually see in their pocket. Apple has notoriously overpriced hardware, so that was a horrible example IMO.

 

[brumwald]

This is too funny.

Over and out. I'm done feeding this troll.

 

[Ducman69]

You can't get called on the weakness of your argument and then just claim being trolled.....

Some quick questions:
- Is HDMI 1.3 capable to carry 1920x1200@60Hz@36bit (I mean 12 bit/color)?

HDMI 1.3 standard requires 36bit for compliance, 48bit capable but optional.

Maximum resolution is 1920×1200@60hz@36bit and 2560×1600p@60hz@30bit.

And another thing...
- Is 1920x1080@120Hz really impossible with HDMI 1.4?
I don't give a shłt for those 120Hz TN displays but there are some "affordable" plasma TVs with 3D Vision support now. Is it some kind of "limited 3D Vision support" which allows you to watch Blu-Ray's in 3D but won't let you play PC games in 3D at the native FullHD resolution?

The latest HDMI has enough bandwidth, but what you are talking about and the only thing I believe is out right now are 1080p@60hz or 720p@120hz displays.

A HDMI 1.4a 3D HDTV supports it, but I don't know if there are actually any of these on the market yet.

Moot regardless IMO, as this technology is far from mature.

 

[Peat Moss]

My Asus P5Q-EM mobo came out in 2008. It has HDMI (I've never used it), but the mobo manual says in the specs that the max resolution is 1980x1080 @60Hz. I am guessing this is HDMI v.1.3

 

[evilsofa]

Just to emphasize a point already made in the thread: a lot of HDMI and Displayport features are optional. Display manufacturers seem to tend to be very stingy on the ports. You will find in many cases that optional HDMI and Displayport features are not used. One particuarly annoying example of this is the Dell U2711 2560x1440 monitor that only supports 1920x1080 on its HDMI 1.3 port.

You can argue the fine points about which connector has better technology, but the most significant difference is that HDMI has a royalty of 4 cents per device and Displayport does not. That's $40,000 per million devices. Emphasis on the word "devices", including each monitor, TV, video card, and motherboard with integrated video. Dell sells more than 40 million PCs a year (and I couldn't find sales figures for Dell monitors), so that 4 cents per device royalty really is a big deal for big manufacturers.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Hmm ... do you know what their revenue per year is? if I make that 40 million PCs into 100 million -- just to make it an easy figure to multiply, and to account for the monitor and video card that will each have an HDMI port -- and then multiply 100 x $40,000 per million devices, we get $4 million per year.

How significant is that compared to their yearly revenue?

 

[suiken_2mieu]

Wow this thread got heated. There are a lot of advantages to displayport. To think that we would see them so soon after the standard was introduced is ludicrous. I'm looking forward to what they can do with the extra bandwidth. Asking why anyone would want to hook up 6 displays is stupid. The reason I bought the Eyefinity 6 edition 5870 was for 2 things, the extra VRAM, but most the flexibility I could have with the card. There are a lot of enthusiast / stock traders / multi-tasking addicts out there who like having the extra visual space.

Is DP better than HDMI? Without a doubt. But it goes back to what does the user need. If he's only using a 24" monitor, who cares? That's what he wants / needs. Then there's people like me who went a bought a TH2Go because I wanted a Triple Monitor Gaming setup before it became popular. People asked me, "why do you need 3 monitors?" All I did was show them. But it a lot of ways, you argument is stupid (@Duc). You can have the same / similar argument from going from DVI to Dual-Link DVI. Or from any standard progression thus far. There are always uses for features that a display connection offers that don't get seen til later. We didn't have 2560x1600 until Dual-Link DVI came out. So why would we have monitors with all the feature list of DisplayPort before the standard has "matured" / become accepted.

Idk if you're trollin', but you seem to be a brick wall and not really adding to the conversation. You just seem to be picking apart peoples arguments to satisfy some love for hdmi.

I'm not going to lie, but I get excited for new technology. Being able to drive higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, and more protocols on one single cable is awesome. Keeps our desk clean, and get's rid of rat's nest, and gets us more space to play in.

 

[omniscence]

Maximum resolution is 1920×1200@60hz@36bit and 2560×1600p@60hz@30bit.

While HDMI supports that, nearly consumer graphics cards do not support that over HDMI. There are some professional graphics cards with 30 bit support, but those usually only come with DisplayPort and DVI.

The latest HDMI has enough bandwidth, but what you are talking about and the only thing I believe is out right now are 1080p@60hz or 720p@120hz displays.

A HDMI 1.4a 3D HDTV supports it, but I don't know if there are actually any of these on the market yet.

HDMI 1.4a supports only 1080p24 and 720p60 in 3D mode. There is nothing in the specification about native 120Hz modes. One should guess that 720p120 would be possible, but no display will implement that as it is not in the specs.

The problem is that computers and video cards are walking away from HDMI to save a few cents on licensing. Plenty of people would like to hook up their ol' lil' Mac Mini to their TV sets like I do w/ my Dell, but alas, mini-displayport shenanigans, boohoo.

Luckily its only about 5% of the market right now, so most laptops and computers have an HDMI out, but my new ATI card doesn't.

You can spend money on an adapter, but then have to pray that your receiver isn't confused and goes, wtf resolution and audio is this? 7.1 DTS? I dunno, make it stereo only or drop it all together.

The newer ATI cards do not have an HDMI port, but both of their Mini-DisplayPort connectors support HDMI passthrough. Which means you can use a passive Mini-DP to HDMI adapter cable to power two HDTVs. Especially business laptops do not usually have HDMI outputs. I own a Lenovo X200s, which only has VGA (and DisplayPort on the docking station) and a Lenovo T410s, which implements DisplayPort and VGA directly. I would never buy a laptop without some way to directly ouput VGA at the moment. The vast majority of presentation installations only have VGA cables and these aren't easily replaced even in the next 5 years. HDMI does not even have a cable length specification and cables of 15-20 meters of length that many projectors would need have to be use amplifiers if replaced with HDMI.

Just recently I had the chance to take a look at a modern HDTV 1080p video conferencing system (cost just short of 20k$) and also supports a presentation sidechannel to show to your conference partners and guess what, that can only be fed by VGA while only supporting VGA output to your own projector. And the conference HDTV was fed by component output. No sign of HDMI.

 

[Ducman69]

This can all be boiled down to one basic fact.

Your TV, your receiver, your consoles, your cameras, your PMP, your phone, your car, your projector, and your laptop (current marketshare is 2.1%, and I'd wager those are almost all Macs) 99% chance do not have a displayport connector. Displayport is not a new technology, it has been out for half a decade. Most of these devices have an HDMI connector, accomplishing today's consumer needs in a single cable with backwards compatibility.

You can either choose to be part of this ecosystem, or grab the competing technology, save four cents, and pat yourself on the back knowing you could daisy chain six monitors together or see a benefit playing a 3D video game on your computer provided you're playing at a minimum framerate of 120FPS (I'm lucky if I can average 50s, but hey).

Yes, there is a niche market for displayport, but it should be offered as an addition to an HDMI port, not a replacement.

 

[DaRuSsIaMaN]

Are new monitors more likely to have HDMI ports or DisplayPort ports? The motherboard I'm considering (with integrated graphics) has 1x vga, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI. I want to get a dual display setup eventually with two 1920x1200 monitors. Is it possible my choices will be limited if some models do not have HDMI ports? Or can I expect every monitor to have HDMI? I seriously have not shopped for PC monitors in a long time...