853
The HDMI Forum rejected AMD's open source HDMI 2.1 implementation (www.gamingonlinux.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (6 children)

There's some really high bandwidth stuff that USB-C isn't rated for. You have to really press the limits, though. Something like 4k + 240Hz + HDR.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    That doesn't even seem so unreasonable. Is that the limit though? My cable puts a gigabyte a second down it so I wouldn't imagine that would hit the limit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    USB-C with Thunderbolt currently had a limit of 40Gbit/sec. Wikipedia has a table of what DisplayPort can do at that bandwidth:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

    See the section "Resolution and refresh frequency limits". The table there shows it'd be able to do 4k/144hz/10bpp just fine, but can't keep above 60hz for 8k.

    Its an uncompressed video signal, and that takes a lot of bandwidth. Though there is a simple lossless compression mode.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It is trivial arithmetic: 4.52403840*2160 ≈ 9 GB/ s. Not even close. Even worse, that cable will struggle to get ordinary 60hz 4k delivered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    4.5 × 240 × 3840 × 2160 ≈ 9 GB/s

    It seems markdown formatting ruined your numbers because of the asterisks. Whatever is written between two of those turns italic, so they're not ideal for multiplication symbols here on Lemmy (or any other place that implements markdown formatting).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent