this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
842 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3514 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
842
The HDMI Forum rejected AMD's open source HDMI 2.1 implementation (www.gamingonlinux.com)
submitted 8 months ago by smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 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.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 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.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 8 months 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.

[–] GeniusIsme@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 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.

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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).

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the maths got a bit funky there. I don't think a cable capable of such speeds would struggled to do 60Hz at 4K, it surely doesn't need close to a gigabyte a second?

[–] GeniusIsme@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

It surely does. Check pirates post for clean math formatting