this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
714 points (96.7% liked)
Funny
6756 readers
214 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neither can do 144hz HD so fuck em both.
uhhh HDMI can't?
No idea why you’re getting downvoted. HDMI 2.1 supports 10-bit 4k 144hz with no stream compression. So the answer, unequivocally, is that yes it can.
DisplayPort 1.4 requires DSC (stream compression) to do the same. DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 supports higher bandwidth but it is not common on displays at this point in time.
People have other understandable reasons for preferring DisplayPort over HDMI (Open vs. closed standards), but there is no disputing the fact that HDMI currently outclasses DisplayPort in terms of bandwidth and thus the limits of what kind of signals it can carry.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Every time I look up HDMI vs DP it seems they are basically exactly the same. One of them is always sightly ahead in some niche regard - they keep leapfrogging each other, so maybe now HDMI is in the lead but soon enough DP will overtake it - but in 99.9% of real world use cases they are basically the same thing. They're both plug-and-play, easy to use and will get you the best picture quality your hardware can show you. It doesn't matter what you use. (But use DP if you can because it's nicer)
Heck, you can send DP signals over HDMI cables and vice versa. It's all a sham!