There might be a couple of others.
This is, again, confusing the issue with imprecision. Apple's implementation meaning what? If you are referring to the mini connector, you are incorrect. The connector supports everything that the full-size version does, including multichannel audio.
HDMI does not support dual-link DVI connections, yes, but not because it caps out at 1920x1200. HDMI bandwidth is in excess of 10Gb/s (which is, in fact, greater than the current generation of DisplayPort modules at 8.64Gb/s). The reason dual-link-equivalent displays are not supported is because there are no large format displays above 1080p, and HDMI's use as a computer interconnect is too uncommon to have justified the additional time and work to add higher video modes to the standard. It was and is not outside the realm of possibility, however. Video modes up to and beyond 1600p (2560x1600), including at least 2400p (3840x2400) are supported and planned for HDMI. This is beyond DisplayPort's current capacity.
HDMI, which is based on single-link DVI, can't drive displays larger than 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz. That's not even enough for 30" Cinema Displays.
Yes, but that's HDMI 1.3: a new standard that has not been widely implemented (… just as Type B).
That's not correct. HDMI 1.3 is a 10.2Gb/s single link connection thanks to increasing the channel to 340MHz, far beyond DVI. This is sufficient, today to drive a 30" Cinema Display. Once again, HDMI's available bandwidth, today is 10.2Gb/s. DisplayPort, too, has plans for channel bonding to increase bandwidth, but both HDMI and DisplayPort are currently single-link in nature, and HDMI today has greater bandwidth than DisplayPort. That is expected to change by the end of 2009.
HDMI Type B is not based on dual-link DVI, but merely on channel bonding, which is not unique to DVI. It is a dual-link technology and it is not widely implemented because there is no need. There are currently no consumer displays more demanding than a 30" Cinema Display, which the single-link HDMI connection can handle.
As AidenShaw pointed out, that's not true. HDMI 1.3 implementation is greater than total DisplayPort implementation at this time.
And once again, a poor analysis showing no basis in reality. HDMI is not an expensive standard in and of itself by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it the product of a few experts. HDMI, in fact, has been developed with a larger cross section of industry groups, as opposed to DisplayPort, which has primarily been advanced by computer manufacturers, mainly Dell.
This is how I've seen it.
Because there are still several key advantages to HDMI, and four cents per device is not itself reason to go out and create a new protocol, interconnect, and standards body. In no small part, it's because many PC companies skipped out on HDMI because DVI still had plenty of leg room, and it's a control thing. They didn't want to be second fiddle to the CE companies. There was no attempt to ask for lowering HDMI royalties or to work together to implement updates directly in the existing and perfectly functional standard.This is how I've seen it.
Why pay $0.04 per HDMI device license, if there's an alternative with no license fee, and has similar component costs?
I think that this is HDMI's strongest advantage - penetration and familiarity.
- Virtually every new flat panel TV larger than 20" or so has HDMI ports, not DisplayPorts.
- Blu-ray players have HDMI ports, not DisplayPorts.
- Digital cable boxes have HDMI ports, not DisplayPorts.
- TiVo HD and other digital PVRs have HDMI ports, not DisplayPorts.
- Home A/V receivers have HDMI ports, not DisplayPorts. (The new Sony ES receivers have 6 HDMI 1.3 inputs, and two HDMI 1.3 outputs.)
- Newegg sells 192 graphics cards with HDMI connections, and 2 with DisplayPort connections.
We have the "perfect storm" of accelerating Blu-ray player/disc sales, and the analog TV cutoff happening. People are buying HDMI equipment, and they'll be keeping it for years. As good as DisplayPort is, this will keep it on the sidelines.
Too bad that Apple didn't go with the existing Mini-HDMI spec instead of inventing a new connector.
Mini-HDMI:
http://hdtv.engadget.com/2006/06/29/hdmis-mini-plug-looks-like-this/
And more to the point, HDMI, and not DisplayPort, can support Blu-ray's DTS-HD audio, which is far beyond DisplayPort's carrying capacity. This was a serious miscalculation on VESA's part--not even matching the established standard means that DisplayPort's utility for HD entertainment is hampered right off the bat, which is why some press releases hedge on the question of competition versus "complementing" HDMI.
That is not the case. For at least the third time now, the single link Type A connector has 10.2Gb/s bandwidth. It is a complete mystery why this myth is so continually perpetuated, despite it being a very basic factual question. Dual-link DVI, which powers 30" displays, is less than 8Gb/s. There is no bandwidth problem with a Type A connector completely replacing every current DVI interface, including 30" LCD monitors.
Not really. The HDMI standard already includes support for that video mode (that's what the Type B connector is for). DP, when version 1.2 is finished later this year, will have finally caught up to what HDMI offers today in version 1.3.
Irrelevant. There's no conceivable purpose to integrating into the northbridge (much less the southbridge) unless that is how the video subsystem is organized. In either case, the voltage is not an issue.
EDN said:
EDN said:
And your reason to believe this is? HDMI handles 120Hz now, and 122 ppi is an arbitrary threshold with no current significance in either the PC or living room.
You misunderstand the source. Existing northbridge-integrated graphics already implement DVI without problem, and your second quoted selection simply states that DisplayPort is being adopted by mainboard manufacturers.
And yet you said, "I remain doubtful that HDMI will scale well above 10 bbp whereas DisplayPort will be able to handle 120Hz and 122 pixels/inch with current tech." Setting aside that HDMI supports both 120Hz and 122 ppi, there has to be some reason for doubt, or you are just spewing classical sensationalist FUD.
And again, your misunderstanding, which is repeated in that very paragraph, is that HDMI is somehow unsuitable, and you have not suggested a way in which that is the case. You've not pointed out a deficiency of HDMI that adds any burden over current designs. You point to one minor paragraph in a multi-page story discussing voltage improvements, which are real, but you can't make a mountain out of something less than an ant hill. Intel did not adopt DisplayPort because it's a 2V standard. Where it does matter, on notebook internal connections, HDMI does not compete.
As a matter of fact, they do not disagree. Intel has many chipsets integrating HDMI support on the silicon level. Their decision to adopt DP does not make a minor voltage differential into a key issue.
Microsoft doesn't care about a tiny voltage differential. They've embraced DP because hardware manufacturers have.
And if they are so evident, they should be easily articulated. So far, you've made statements that are either not true or boil down to a factually accurate but largely irrelevant voltage dip (one that is entirely negated by the implementation of DVI passthrough on DP, which many customers are expecting) that imposes no significant constraint.
Then where is the YCC color support, the device control, and a suitable amount of audio bandwidth? Where is the automatic AV sync lock? It's clearly inferior to HDMI for consumer electronics, because DP can't even take over for shipping Blu-ray players. Meanwhile, HDMI fully supports, in terms of capacity, every shipping and soon-to-be-shipping PC display device.
