HDMI 2.1 announced, supports 8K and 4K 120Hz

>>58355531
No.

isn't that exactly what DisplayPort supports

Didn't know DisplayPort was ever alive

File: overclocking_large_6.jpg (384KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1600x1000px

So when are we gonna see the new 5,000 USD HDMI 2.1 cable?

>>58355581
HDMI 2.1 supports 8K60hz 48 Gb data

DisplayPort 1.4 supports 8K30Hz 32.4 Gb data

Roughly 50% more bandwidth with HDMI2.1

Display port already supports 32gbps, HDMI was at 18gbps previously, this brings HDMI up to 48gbps which surpasses dispalyport, but HDMI wasn't "dead" at 18gbps even though DP had 32gbps, so I doubt DP will die while HDMI has 48gbps, just wait until DP 1.5 where it gets doubled to 64gbps.

>>58355638
What does the bandwidth mean that isn't related to the max resolution/rate

File: image.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

if it can't do 4K 144hz I don't buy it

>>58355662
Bandwidth is the ability to carry more data between the two devices.

High bandwidth = Higher image clarity and smootheness

>>58355531
Why can't they make a standard that would last for 20 years, like support 3000Gb data rate.

>>58355706
Is that what it means?
If a card can display 3440x2160 of pixels 120 times a second, what does a few extra Gbps do for the image quality?

File: 300px-SCART_20050724_002[1].jpg (15KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x225px

analloge master race

DVI master race

>>58355706

8K60hz / 8K30hz != 48Gb / 32.4Gb

I find your post unsettling.

>>58355679

DP 1.4 can. It can even do 120Hz 5K.

>>58355531
To me display port was always dead. I don't even remember seeing a male connector IRL.

>>58355706
The monitors light refresh rate and pixel response times actually determine the clarity, the smoothness is a factor of frame pacing, which is dealt with on your GPU

>>58355753
I thought it was just 4K 120hz?
Isn't that why the 4K 144hz monitor has two DP ports?

File: depositphotos_27822555-Disappointed-business-man-showing-thumb.jpg (198KB, 1024x917px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x917px

mfw most TVs still don't have DisplayPort

Why? Is it the Jews?

I know it costs a bit more to add another connector, but still...

>>58355747
Are you dumb?

>>58355767
In any comparison between X and Y, you try to eliminate all other variables. This means, if all things are equal, with exception of HDMI 2.1 and Displayport 1.4, then blah blah blah.

If you wish to nitpick about different monitors or different gpu or different sun or the position of the moon, that's your discretion. However that will not effect the absolute difference.

> Having both DisplayPort and HDMI and additionally having multiple versions of them in different sizes is just a huge scam so we have to buy countless adapters/cables for our graphics cards, laptops, projectors, screens and TVs.
We are victims.

>>58355799

How is that dumb, if I may ask?

>>58355788

Trying to keep TV's and monitors separate. Image what could happen if normies found out they are basically the same!

>>58355726
May allow it to do the same resolution/frame rate with higher bitrate

>>58355799
I still don't get how 4K@120hz + data is better than 4K@120hz
Is there some metadata that gets analyzed by the monitor?

>>58355830
But they are not:
Everything sold as TV is generally too blurry to be used as television screens and everything sold as PC monitor is generally to small to be used as TV.

>>58355847
But doesn't the GPU handle that? Are there different codecs being received by the monitor? I would've guessed that raw DisplayPort output wouldn't have any extra data past the pixels but I don't know shit

Not to be a dick, but... Wasn't display port always dead?

>>58355679
>8k is actually much closer to 7.5k
fucking marketers

>>58355917
Its always been this way. 1920x1080 is 2K but its not actually 2000 pixels.

>>58356054
Who the fuck called it 2k though?

>>58355917
>1920x1080 = "1K"
A "K" is not a unit of pixels, it's an advertisement

>>58356067
Newegg

>>58356054
2K was never supposed to mean 2000 pixels, dumbass.

>>58356095
Thats literally the point I'm making.

>>58356111
But your entire post is still wrong. 1080p is 1K. 4K = 1080p x 4.

>>58356075
>>58356148
I meant SI prefix (not hnit). And it stands for kilo, which stands 1000.

>>58356153
Ok my bad

>>58356148
4K doesn't mean 4 Kilopixels
It doesn't mean 4 Kilo-horizontal-pixels
It's a marketing term so dumb normies could easily differentiate 16:9 resolutions without remembering 8 whole digits

>>58356153
That's not how it works, lol.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 512x288px

>>58356148
Oh my god wow I never knew that everything suddenly makes sense why didn't anybody mention that wow 1080 vertical pixels means 1000, and 2160 vertical pixels means 4000, it all makes sense now

>>58356215
That's how marketing works

File: 8k.png (10KB, 819x159px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 819x159px

>>58356181

>>58356153
>4K = 1080p x 4.

1920x1080 * 2 = 3840*2160
1920x1080 * 4 = 8k

>>58356242
>TV marketing K must mean kilo because I learned that in school!
>7680 = 8000
>3440 = 4000
>1920 = 2000
>1280 = "1K 720p"
It's all just marketing because resolutions are big scary numbers

>>58356258
Are you fucking retarded or did you drop out or something?

File: image.jpg (67KB, 962x538px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 962x538px

>>58356258

>>58356153

so 8K should be called 16K since it's 4K times 4 ?

>>58356258
retard

>>58356327
So a 1K monitor is 720p?

>>58356288
It is marketing, and it means kilo. Just as a kilo byte is often (and wrongly) said to be 1024 byte.
Whatever definition fits marketers best is used. Either the actual Kilo (1000), if convention is more. Or the convention (if you'd round it it'd be 1000) if the actual kilo would be more.

File: 2k.png (111KB, 965x877px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 965x877px

>>58356054
>1920x1080 is 2K
Only in marketing meme land.

>>58356361
It's not referring to kilo or any bastardization of kilo

>>58356375
See >>58356242

>>58356362
This
2K, 4K and 8K are already coined resolutions, and none of them are 16:9 1080p or 2160p

File: db0.jpg (26KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 349x642px

>>58356258
(You)

>>58356258
are you actually retarded?

>>58356153
>1080p is 1K

but that's wrong you retard

>>58356242
>in the order of 8000
So not 8000, but close to it.

>>58356362
Nobody calls 1920x1080 2k. It's called 1080p.
Autists ITT hear the new marketing terms 4k and 8k and try to apply the same naming convention to the previous resolutions. When it is not even the same.

File: f7FdEdG.jpg (10KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 260x194px

>>58356258

>>58356484
A kilobyte is not 1000 bytes, but close to it.

>>58356538
A kilobyte is actually 1000 bytes
A kibibyte is not actually 1000 bytes, but close to it
Like I said, it's marketing semantics that you shouldn't concern yourself with

File: kilobyte.png (9KB, 819x125px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 819x125px

>>58356561
windows says otherwise

>>58356613
Well Windows is clearly not referring to Kilo-, just like 4K isnt

>>58356613
Windows is wrong and having properly labeled GiB is one of the best reasons to use a GNU + Linux desktop operating system

File: 8K-1.png (19KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x338px

...

File: image.jpg (19KB, 188x267px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 188x267px

>>58356705
Gee it was a marketing gimmick all along

>>58356733
who knew!

>>58356215
Yes it is, you retard. Do the math. 4K has EXACTLY 4 times the amount of pixels 1080p does.

>>58355531

Not even close.

Displayport is a superior interface made for computer mointors

While HDMI is an inferior interface geared towards A/V equipment.

>>58357509
Why?

>>58355531
>8K
Literally why

>>58355638
>HDMI 2.1 supports 8K60hz 48 Gb data

Is this before or after PHY-level coding? (8b10b, 64b66b, etc.)
Do the quoted resolution modes require bullshit chroma subsampling?

>>58356258
1920 x 1080 = 2073600
3840 x 2160 = 8294400
8294400 / 4 = 2073600

Again, 4K is 1080p x 4. This is fucking elementary math. Try not to overthink it.

>>58357610
Not him but different use cases require different optimizations.

A/V requires longer cables, more audio channels, etc.
DisplayPort requires higher refresh rates, a wider variety of resolutions, etc.

I does make sense to have two standards instead of just one.
And it really triggers me that more people use HDMI than DP for computer purposes now.

>>58358533
>DisplayPort requires

Meant to say: computers require

>>58356705
So with "8K" they finally dropped the autistic "K = 1024" meme?

This thread is hilarious.

>>58358577
It never was 1024.

>>58358746
2K = 2 x 1024 = 2048
4K = 4 x 1024 = 4096

>>58358766
Now look at the picture again.

>>58358577
>>58358766
Are you stupid? K is the 1080p multiplier.
1K = 1080p
2K = 1440p (2 times as many pixels as the 1K)
4K = 2160p (4 times as many pixels as 1K)
etc.

>>58358797
Then 8k should be 16k.

File: .jpg (17KB, 319x240px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 319x240px

>>58358811
Marketologists literally played themselves this time.

>>58358797
Except certain people (not me) freak out when you call 2160p "4K".
They insist you call it "UHD", and only use "4K" for resolutions that are 4096 pixels wide.

So I was wondering if with "8K" this distinction is finally gone.
But after following >>58358787's recommendation I guess there will be both a "8K UHD" that is 7680 wide and a "8K" that is 8192 wide.

>>58358886
They will probably call an ultrawide 4K an ultrashort 8K

>>58358811
No argument there.

>>58358797
Also, "2K" actually has 1.777... times as many pixels as 1080p (1.333...^2). For it to have twice as many each dimension would have to be root 2 times the size of 1080p, which would result in a very strange resolution.

>>58355531
No because no DRM, its not even out, DP can do 4K 144Hz and why 8k?

File: 1440.jpg (230KB, 1135x1135px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1135x1135px

1440p masterrace coming through

>>58355917
Fucking marketing terms.
They call UDH 4K when its not.

All I want is 240hz.

I don't care if there's no way to distinguish it, I just want to see it.

File: bitdepth_examples_large[1].jpg (33KB, 497x660px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 497x660px

I've always wondered: do images sent through a display cable actually use 32 bits per pixel?

Since the alpha byte isn't needed (as the image is already processed), wouldn't it make more sense to just use 24 bits per pixel?

>>58359351
Benq makes one

File: image.jpg (981KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 2448x3264px

>>58359262
Feels comfy

File: 02+Lum+not+impressed.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>58359262
>acer
>not westinghouse
>not viewsonic

I'm excited for TVs to finally support high frame rates and adaptive sync.

>>58359879
>not 60hz

>>58359916
>not interlaced 24hz

>>58357636
Literally because there is a monitor made that needs an 8k input.
Literally because there is demand.
Literally because specs should be somewhat future (1-3 years) proof.
Literally because the industry give a shit about your opinion.

>>58359900
There's no point. All TV shows and movies are 24 fps and consoles don't output above 60 fps anyway.

>>58355740
DVI was a god tier back then but it's old and nearing its life now, Display Port is 100x better than DVI

>>58360522
computers put out higher framerate
do you not think there is a market for 60" computer monitors?

>>58361208
No shit, he was specifically talking about TVs though.

>>58361230
well there aren't 60" computer monitors, they sell them under the TV moniker

Thats why there is a demand for large tv's with freesync and high framerate, for use as computer monitors

nobody uses airwave television anymore so I don't think that we can really be specific about TV's, and displays that work like tv's but technically aren't.

>>58361430
>well there aren't 60" computer monitors

Who ever said anything about 60"? We were talking about refresh rate.

>>58355531
No, display port has prongs.
Until hdmi has optional prongs/screws, display port still has a purpose.

>>58355531
sorry DVI still dominate

>>58356705
where can i buy DCI 1080p and DCI 2160p?

>>58361580
I'm saying that extremely large displays are always sold as TV's, regardless of their capabilities.

Just because its being sold as a TV, and its the size of a TV, doesn't mean that having a high refresh rate is wasted tech. true most a/v components do output a low frame rate, but computers don't. So if you are looking for a HUGE computer monitor, you'll be buying a tv with a very high refresh rate.

I only said 60" because thats beyond the size threshold of computer monitors, but squarely in the size threshold of big screen TVs.
If you've ever hooked your pc up to a tv to play video games, you probably noticed the horrible refresh rate.

this is why we want tv's with fast refresh rates

>>58359962
>not using motion plus for silk smooth 60 fps

>>58357465
except 4K refers to the number of horizontal lines of resolution while 1080p is the number of vertical lines of resolution

4K isn't even really 4K as it's less than 4000 horizontal lines

>>58356054
What? 1920x1080 is 1080p and 2560x1440 is 2K...

>>58355869
This. I've used computers hooked to TVs a lot in the past year or two and it's amazing how AWFUL most TVs are.

The too small thing doesn't really matter as much.

>>58361705
they measure it sideways now

>>58356683
this

>>58355917
>yfw you realize 4k is actually 3.5k

>>58361746
exactly what i said dumbass

and 4K isn't really 4K as it doesn't have 4000 horizontal lines of resolution, it's only 3840

>>58361761
but that's wrong

>>58355531
TV manufacturers need to board the displayport train already. But they won't, because movie publishers demand expensive, ineffective, problem-inducing security features for m-muh drm

>>58355880
I believe he meant bit depth. So, more colors.

>>58357465
it's not how it works because the same logic doesn't apply to 2K and 8K.

yes 4K is 4 times 1080p but 2K is not 2 times 1080p and 8K is not 8 times 1080p

4K just refers to the horizontal lines

>>58355909
No, DisplayPort continues to be used widely in the business and enthusiast markets. Also thanks to Apple, Intel, and the USB Implementers Forum all getting in bed together, USB-C is a frankenport that can be DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and USB3 simultaneously.

>>58362454

Can you give me a quick explanation of that? Or something I can read, I need to get my daily dose of RAGE.

>>58359455
They don't. The 32bit colorspace only exists in Windows using their wonky definition of 8 bits per channel with an 8bit alpha channel (8*4=32). It would contain 4.2 billion colors and be ridiculously bandwidth intensive to shuffle from the GPU to the display. It's only useful for internal computation, the final image should be pushed to the display using as few bits as possible to keep bandwidth and latency down.

For comparison, a 10bit panel has a colorspace containing 1.04 billion colors ("30bit"). That same colorspace with a 10bit alpha channel would jump to a goddamn trillion colors and Windows would call it 40bit.

File: 1476918240820.jpg (50KB, 408x439px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 408x439px

>>58358811
Does that mean the next evolution in TV's after 16k should be 32k?

The most exciting part of HDMI 2.1 is Variable Refresh Rate. Unfortunately it will probably take another generation for consoles to take advantage of this, if they ever do.

Cinematic 12fps isn't so bad when you've got gsync to cover it up, so hopefully VRR can do the same.

>>58362744
which is bizarre because monitors typically don't use the weird ass 4K ratio. Might as well just stick with "2160p" nomenclature.

>mfw just bought a second monitor of the one I bought 5 years ago.
>no display port
>has dvi, HDMI, and analog

No fucks given, I'm not spending 350+ on a monitor to have 144Hz or more than 1080p.

>>58355849
Ever heard about bitrate?

I'd just like to point out that HDMI 2.1 is when HDMI becomes worth using.

At current, HDMI is less capable than Component analogue connection when it comes to colour bandwidth at 1080p, above 1080p it becomes even worse.

HDMI was adopted too soon and is only now ANNOUNCED to be worthwhile.

Crazy shit.

>>58356258
LEAVE /g/ And NEVER RETURN

>>58356288
they call 720p hd now.

I have 6 screens, 5 of wich are VGA and 1 DVI
is that bad?

>>58365548
yes. buy hdmi.. it supports drm and the manufacturer has to pay a license fee to use it

>>58365761
Licensing fees are also why DP will never die. VESA members aren't paying that shit if they can avoid it.

>>58355781
No that's for daisychaining other monitors

>>58356067
DCI.

>>58361717
Only if you're a cellphone manufacturer

>>58365958
DP is more expensive for licensing now due to claims from MPEG group. $0.2 per device compared to $0.15 for HDMI

>>58355788
Because it sucks ass. Displayport is only rated for 2m (6.5ft) cable length. HDMI works at 10 times of that

>>58355531
I honestly don't even know why there were two ports that have almost the same physical layer. Seriously is there a significant difference between their connectors or cables?

I mean DisplayPort's goal was valid but there's really no need if HDMI will surpass it, because it's more widely used. Why would anyone use a port that is not available all the time which has the same specifications? I would use the one that is available most of the time if the specs were the same.

>>58369090
HDMI is non-free.

>>58359879
>westinghouse
What the fuck does a book have to do with anything

>>58369090
DP still supports daisy chaining. I know literally 0 people who make use of it, but still, it is there.

>>58366380

DP's ability to daisychain is fantastic.

>>58355581
Displayport doesn't transfer sound does it?

>>58358533
It's literally like no body in this thread has a job.

DisplayPort is used in a massive amount of business line Desktops & Laptops for Enterprise usage.

All of our projectors use DisplayPort and VP's right through to our lowest pleb employee's use the standard.

HDMI literally isn't found anywhere outside of your cum covered anime bedroom....

>>58370623
I think it does.

>>58370815
Yes, it does.

>>58356258

Hahahahaha I was waiting for this.

I made the same mistake when I was a retarded kid.

>>58370778
>you should do this because people who have more money than knowledge do this
Good point

>>58355531
I hope they get their shit together and stop this crap of changing the port type when they show up new tech

>>58370778
business computers use vga

>>58355531
No. Nothing will kill DisplayPort, no matter how long they keep trying. Nobody wants HDMI.

Also,
>8K and 4K 60 Hz
DisplayPort could already do this btw

And the HD resolutions were apparently also based on approximated print resolutions.

16mm = 1K 720p
35mm = 2K 1080p
70mm = 4K 2160p

But I think that's bullshit since you can remaster 35mm and even 16mm in 4K and if 8K now exists, then film would be obsolete forever if 35mm can only be scanned up to 1080p.

There are some possibilities that 35mm can be scanned in 8K, not sure about 16mm.

>Blu-ray still restricted to 4:2:0 subsampling

Give me a call when consumer formats get 4:2:2.

>>58355662
Nothing, the bandwidth just affects the supported resolution / refresh rate / bit depth combination.

You need enough bandwidth to support the (Width × Height × Bit depth) / (Refresh rate) bitrate

>>58355594
ive three laptops with displayport out, and three displayport to hdmi dongles

have never attached anything to a displayport display, even at work

who the fuck uses this port

>>58371201
>I don't use it so I'll conclude that no one does

>>58371188
Ultra HD Blu-ray has 4:4:4 subsampling.

Also, Ultra HD Blu-ray supports 60fps but no consumer release had it except for the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray version of Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, and even the regular Blu-ray and 3D versions only have 24fps.

>>58371248
>>58371188
>Ultra HD Blu-ray
irrelevant until you can actually play it back

>>58371248
>Ultra HD Blu-ray has 4:4:4 subsampling.

Nope, still 4:2:0. HDMI 2.0+ introduced a 4:2:0 mode to save on bandwidth knowing that typical sources like (UHD) Blu-ray don't go any higher.

No surprise there about 60fps, since it requires a lot more storage than the 24fps cinema standard (and people are still turned off by the "soap opera effect").

>>58371367
There are already Ultra HD Blu-ray players and 4K TVs support it.

Only problem is [spoiler]that no piracy as of yet[/spoiler].

>>58371394
As someone who owns a 4k monitor, and a pretty solid computer with a BR-XL reader that can physically read UHD blurays, fuck you and fuck the movie industry, my setup is 100% ready for UHD blurays, but since no software is available to playback UHD blurays, I have to pirate the movies instead.

I own The Martian on UHD bluray, I can physically insert it into my computer and it sees it as The Martian, but I can't rip the ISO, I can't play back the files, etc.

It's bullshit and there is no reason for it besides MUH DRM.

They've already been pirated because all you have to do is take a 4k TV, and a UHD specific standalone bluray player, put a UHD capture card that strips HDCP in between the two, and bobs your uncle. You now have a UHD screen cap without any DRM you can upload wherever you want.

>>58371394
>Blu-ray players
>TVs
irrelevant

I don't want to watch content on some piece of shit TV with its own botnet OS and artifacts all over the place, I want to watch them on my PC monitor using mpv. Oh, and I want to be able to do it without being connected to the internet.

Until I can do that, there's not a reason to spend a single cent on UltraHD Blu-rays.

>>58355594
Because DVI is horrible shit.

>>58371436
The movie industry really needs to catch up with the porn industry, where you get bullshit-free H.264 files and can handle them any way you want (within legal confines obviously). I'd absolutely buy every movie I like if it just allowed me to pack it on my NAS and stream it to all devices in my home. Only piracy delivers that comfort.

>>58355721
>2 yrs later

>>58355594
I have to use it with my 144hz monitor