Why DisplayPort Is Still Better Than HDMI
Why DisplayPort Is Still Better Than HDMI
I have a similar issue that when my monitors connected by display port are put to sleep, the computer treats it like they have been disconnected completely - and hence all my windows get shoved around.
This is with a laptop with its screen option, hooked up to a DP monitor by USB C adapter.
I would love to switch to DP but this prevents me.
This is a windows bug. Are you still on win10? It’s fixed in 11.
Have you ever experienced the frustration of your desktop application windows unexpectedly rearranging every time you return to your computer from sleep? We have on a feature to mitigate this behavior, available in Windows Preview now!
Here we go
Seems like it got proper documentation. I guess you just cope.
I more often I see weird projects that only offer binaries that people just recommend me or even the school, I would rather trust Open Source code that has less documentation than a binary only project with little documentation. I don’t even trust Microsoft binaries. Its always malware because its very malicious to send so much telemetry without asking me
Because because because because because!
Because of the wonderful things it does!
We’re going to use DisplayPort! The best video connection interface!
He’s pointing and using a red arrow.
Man clearly knows his stuff.
Yup, and I try to avoid channels that do it. That, and the clickbait titles. I’m not subbed to LTT for largely this reason, and I avoid many larger channels as well.
I guess it’s my petty little boycott.
Look up the DeArrow extension. It’ll purge all the shitty thumbnails and clickbait titles.
I really hope it gets integrated in ReVanced or NewPipe.
In general, what is the highest frequency that can be carried over a wire?
I know it can do these resolutions in practice because I have personally operated CRTs at 4000x3000 resolution in the early 2000s. This could be considered “the 4:3 of 4K.” It was not done on fancy equipment or high-end monitors. Analog stuff really could just go to reality high resolutions and refresh rates with above-average, but typical stuff.
CRTs simply respond to waveforms for red, green, blue, vertical sync, and horizonal sync. That’s it. If you want more horizonal pixels, make your scan lines denser. If you want more vertical pixels, add more scan lines. Want a faster refresh rate? Simply run all the signals faster.
There is no hard upper limit to it. With digital signals, there are throughput limits per spec due to bit rates, but with analog, there are no bits. Resolutions like 40k x 30k are theoretically possible. The difficult parts are rendering the signal at these high frequencies, and being able to meaningfully display them. The VGA connection itself has no limits.
In theory you can push anything over the wires, be it analogue or digital. The issue is with communication standards. VGA defines which wires should be used, which frequencies should be used, etc. Thus VGA specifically has limitations. Otherwise monitors, cables and video cards would have compatibility issues. I don’t think you were pushing 4000x3000 resolution through VGA. Just like today no one is pushing video streams to giant building sized screens over consumer HDMI or DVI.
Another example is XLR VS 3.5mm jack. In theory you can push audio signal of any quality over both, but XLR by spec is balanced and shielded, while 3.5mm is not. This means that XLR is capable of pushing much better audio.
Otherwise monitors, cables and video cards would have compatibility issues.
You’re right, and this was absolutely a thing. Video cards could produce whatever they were capable of, and monitors could display whatever they were also capable of. You could also push resolutions and refresh rates to monitors that was beyond the monitors’ specs, and you would also risk damaging the monitor by doing this.
I don’t think you were pushing 4000x3000 resolution through VGA.
You don’t need to believe me. That’s your choice. I had friends that could do the same. This was with a Matrox card and a 19" Acer CRT. The display was nearly impossible to read, and the color mask broke up the individual pixels too much, anyway.
Just like today no one is pushing video streams to giant building sized screens over consumer HDMI or DVI.
Digital video has upper limits in its specs. This is the whole point of this conversation.
Another example is XLR VS 3.5mm jack. In theory you can push audio signal of any quality over both, but XLR by spec is balanced and shielded, while 3.5mm is not. This means that XLR is capable of pushing much better audio.
A bit of incorrect information here. There is no “unshielded 3.5mm spec.” Good cables have shields, but not all. XLR doesn’t have the ability to transport higher frequencies because it’s balanced, or “much better audio.” On paper, unbalanced audio is better for short runs because there is more opportunity for XLR signals to have extremely minute signal quality issues due to the hot and cold signal mirroring, but it’s so small that it doesn’t matter.
Anyway, it’s been fun. I lived this era, and am speaking from experience. I’d be wasting my time if I was making this stuff up. Cheers.
Yes... it is a better way to consume this click bait content.
LTT makes power point slides into video with 2 ads, then YB will show it into your feed until you click it by mistake... no chill imho
They do make a lot of decent content but this shit is tiring
From the transcript and ai generated summary from Claude:
Here is a summary of the key points from the Linus Tech Tips YouTube video on why DisplayPort is better than HDMI:
DisplayPort has an embedded mode (EDP) used in laptops and tablets to drive internal displays in a simpler, thinner way vs HDMI.
DisplayPort has a USB-C alt mode to deliver signals over USB-C ports, enabling charging and video over one cable. HDMI’s alt mode was discontinued.
DisplayPort is royalty-free while HDMI charges device makers a per-unit royalty fee.
DisplayPort supports multi-stream transport for daisy chaining multiple monitors from one output.
DisplayPort can easily convert to HDMI signals via passive adapters, but not the reverse.
DisplayPort cables often have latches to lock them in place, preventing accidental disconnections.
Key advantages of DisplayPort are higher bandwidth, more flexibility, lower costs, and convenience features over HDMI. But HDMI remains widely used due to broader consumer electronics adoption.
In summary, the video makes the case that DisplayPort is technically superior to HDMI in several ways, though market dominance of HDMI persists. Both serve an important role in connectivity.
In that case, USB A came out right 20(?) years earlier than C - I’m guessing here, don’t slay me.
There were USB patches for windows 95 to add the support in
USB A came out right 20(?) years earlier than C - I’m guessing here, don’t slay me.
Pretty close. It’s debatable at exactly what moment a cable “comes out” (is it when the specification is finalized? When it’s published? When device manufacturing starts? When a popular consumer device first has it?) but my personal opinion is 1996 and 2017 for USB-A and USB-C, so 21 years difference.
HDMI came from the TV manufacturers and was earlier than DP. While DP came from VESA and Computer OEMs.
HDMI being in TVs gave it a far wider penetration in the consumer market, and so when people wanted to hookup their laptops and other devices to TVs, they’d need HDMI.
Ironically, as ports have been simplified to almost just USB-C on many devices, DP’s market share actually grows as it’s cheaper and easier to include for OEMs, and if the consumer has to buy an adapter anyway, it might as well be on their dime to pay for HDMI, rather than the phone or laptop maker.