DisplayPort is designed to give your GPU a fast connection to your display. HDMI is designed to give the copyright holder of the video you are watching a DRM protected connection to your display to make piracy harder.
This is why DisplayPort is better for the consumer but HDMI is more popular because the device manufacturers are really in charge of what you get.
Aside from DisplayPort having more bandwidth, as someone else pointed out, HDMI is consumer video garbage. DisplayPort was designed for use as a computer display. Also, HDMI Forum is a cartel that charges ridiculous licensing fees for their proprietary interface. VESA is a standards body and their licensing costs are much more reasonable.
HDMI 1.4 has a less than half the bitrate of the oldest DisplayPort standard. And regarding the newer HDMI standard: read the article. The forum are being jerks…
The only disadvantage of display port that I can think of is that it’s harder to find capture devices (or at least Linux compatible ones) that have display port. Generally no one cares about that stuff though. I use capture cards because I sometimes do stuff involving other computers and it’s 1000 times more convenient to have a vlc window floating around with the display output.
No one seems to have this use case besides me, I’m just glad that there exist capture cards fast enough to do playback in real-time and not a 5 second delay. I don’t stream.
the reason why its harder is because devices with display port can basically nayively record without a capture card. other devices where it would be common like consoles design it to be plugged into a tv. and those in the tv business and console business are either in, or fold into the HDMI consortum standards.
this mindset will never change till basically most tv manufacturers put displayport on tvs
Me neither. I play at 1440p/120hz. Both cables can manage that resolution and frame rate.
The only difference I get is when I use DisplayPort and leave my computer alone for 20 mins, the GPU goes to sleep and the monitor won’t display anything although I hear background apps/games running.
Without changing any settings, using a HDMI cable solved that.
its starts i matter more when you do more exotic connections. display port is more friendly for merging it into another form factor, and between the two, the only one capable of tech like daisy chaining monitors.
hdmi also requires a licensing fee to use, which technically add a cost to the end user.
In a multi monitor set up, when a screen connected to display port goes to sleep my computer treats it like that screen was disconnected - meaning all my open applications get shoved from one screen to another. I’ve also used HDMI to avoid that.
On the other hand, when I turn off my second monitor (on HDMI), all my apps stay on that screen, meaning I have to manually move them over to my main monitor where I can actually see them.
And if my DisplayPort monitor is off and everything’s on my second monitor, when I turn the main one back on all the windows go back to where they used to be (al least on Plasma Wayland).
That’s interesting, though not my experience. If a monitor is turned off then the PC picks up that it has disconnected.
The scenario I described occurs when the OS (Windows) sleeps the screen after inactivity. It could be a function of the laptop, of the monitor, or of the cables. In my set up using HDMI over display port solves it.
Why?
I’ve never understood the difference other than I get the vague sense display port is associated with apple.
DisplayPort is designed to give your GPU a fast connection to your display. HDMI is designed to give the copyright holder of the video you are watching a DRM protected connection to your display to make piracy harder.
This is why DisplayPort is better for the consumer but HDMI is more popular because the device manufacturers are really in charge of what you get.
DP has HDCP too. I get what you’re saying, but there was more profiteering involved even than what you describe.
Care to explain how one feature added years in defines what the entire thing is “designed for”? HDMI had nothing related to drm for several years
Aside from DisplayPort having more bandwidth, as someone else pointed out, HDMI is consumer video garbage. DisplayPort was designed for use as a computer display. Also, HDMI Forum is a cartel that charges ridiculous licensing fees for their proprietary interface. VESA is a standards body and their licensing costs are much more reasonable.
HDMI 1.4 has a less than half the bitrate of the oldest DisplayPort standard. And regarding the newer HDMI standard: read the article. The forum are being jerks…
The only disadvantage of display port that I can think of is that it’s harder to find capture devices (or at least Linux compatible ones) that have display port. Generally no one cares about that stuff though. I use capture cards because I sometimes do stuff involving other computers and it’s 1000 times more convenient to have a vlc window floating around with the display output.
No one seems to have this use case besides me, I’m just glad that there exist capture cards fast enough to do playback in real-time and not a 5 second delay. I don’t stream.
Anyone doing anything with video game consoles has a capture card.
People using other computers usually use RDP, SSH, or a KVM system that also allows control.
the reason why its harder is because devices with display port can basically nayively record without a capture card. other devices where it would be common like consoles design it to be plugged into a tv. and those in the tv business and console business are either in, or fold into the HDMI consortum standards.
this mindset will never change till basically most tv manufacturers put displayport on tvs
Me neither. I play at 1440p/120hz. Both cables can manage that resolution and frame rate.
The only difference I get is when I use DisplayPort and leave my computer alone for 20 mins, the GPU goes to sleep and the monitor won’t display anything although I hear background apps/games running.
Without changing any settings, using a HDMI cable solved that.
HDMI it is.
its starts i matter more when you do more exotic connections. display port is more friendly for merging it into another form factor, and between the two, the only one capable of tech like daisy chaining monitors.
hdmi also requires a licensing fee to use, which technically add a cost to the end user.
In a multi monitor set up, when a screen connected to display port goes to sleep my computer treats it like that screen was disconnected - meaning all my open applications get shoved from one screen to another. I’ve also used HDMI to avoid that.
On the other hand, when I turn off my second monitor (on HDMI), all my apps stay on that screen, meaning I have to manually move them over to my main monitor where I can actually see them.
And if my DisplayPort monitor is off and everything’s on my second monitor, when I turn the main one back on all the windows go back to where they used to be (al least on Plasma Wayland).
That’s interesting, though not my experience. If a monitor is turned off then the PC picks up that it has disconnected.
The scenario I described occurs when the OS (Windows) sleeps the screen after inactivity. It could be a function of the laptop, of the monitor, or of the cables. In my set up using HDMI over display port solves it.
Ugh, so THAT’S why it happens? It’s quite irritating, and only rebooting seems to fix it.
Even if HDMI manages the same framerate it will still have a higher latency.