HDMI 2.1 Specification Brings 4K@120Hz / 8K@60Hz

[starshipeleven]

...And here I am - with 3x Monitors. One (23") is broken and the two I use is a 19" CRT from 1999 at 1280x1024 resolution (the one I use to write this on) and a 23" LCD at 1600x1200. No 4k/8k here and I am perfectly happy with it!

you dirty unwashed troglodyte, how dare you try to stop progress like this.

(/sarcasm)

[M@GOid]

I wish Displayport could kill DVI-d far more than HDMI. That's what, space for 2 friggin phyisical ports wasted with obsolete crap I can use a 20$ adapter for?

Well, me too. But the amount of old LCD monitors still relying on DVI is a amazing testimony for the dependability of those old hardware. I never have a LCD monitor to die on me and only one of my close friends who had a defective LCD. CRT monitors on the other hand...

[starshipeleven]

So I just realized, but shouldn't the name "HDMI" be obsolete now anyway? These specs are way beyond "high definition". Seem to me it should be renamed to UHDMI (or maybe just UDMI).

I doubt the "H" in HDMI was supposed to mean the "high definition" as in FullHD. It's a more generic term, and a 4/8k is "high" definition too, as in "higher than HDready"

But overall I think the whole FullHD, UltraHD, QHD, MegaSuperExtraHD, just shows the people choosing the names are morons unable to see a more distant future than a few months later.

Seriously, now "standard definition" is pretty much obsolete and the standard is the "high definition", and naming will only keep getting sillier and sillier as tech improves the resolution, while consumers will have no fucking idea of what is what.

While if they just used the numbers it would be easy.

[ElectricPrism]

Ok now make USB type c do 4k @ 144hz

[droste]

Am I missing something or why is 4K "only" 120Hz when it can do 8K with 60Hz. 4K should be doable with 240Hz then!?

[hugo8621]

I wish Displayport could kill DVI-d far more than HDMI. That's what, space for 2 friggin phyisical ports wasted with obsolete crap I can use a 20$ adapter for?

I prefer VGA to die first. Most 2017 mainboards still have an VGA connector, many monitors too. Just why this digital-analog-digital forth and back conversion? You won't find VGA in higher priced models, so one has to pay extra, to omit it...

[schmidtbag]

But overall I think the whole FullHD, UltraHD, QHD, MegaSuperExtraHD, just shows the people choosing the names are morons unable to see a more distant future than a few months later.

Seriously, now "standard definition" is pretty much obsolete and the standard is the "high definition", and naming will only keep getting sillier and sillier as tech improves the resolution, while consumers will have no fucking idea of what is what.

I certainly can't argue with any of that. Kind of reminds me of products that have "new" in their product name when obsolescence is in the near future. The best examples of this are "The New iPad" and "Windows NT". At least for the latter, it is still "in development" despite having very little in common with the first generation; likely only because phasing out the name would make it contradictory.

While if they just used the numbers it would be easy.

The problem is now that resolutions are involving 8 total digits (up to 11 digits if you include refresh rate), numbers aren't much easier for consumers. Though, I don't see the harm in taking the camera approach and just measure in megapixels. That way you only have 3 digits to remember (if you round to the nearest tenth) and it is assumed the aspect ratio would be 16:9 unless specified otherwise.

[starshipeleven]

The problem is now that resolutions are involving 8 total digits

I mean the shortened form, so 2k, 4k, 8k and so on. And you can use m (mega/million) or g (giga/billion) too and you still have a short-ish number.

[schmidtbag]

I mean the shortened form, so 2k, 4k, 8k and so on. And you can use m (mega/million) or g (giga/billion) too and you still have a short-ish number.

Eh... I'm not a fan of that. Those numbers are misleading, or at the very least, inconsistent. Though "1K" isn't really ever used, to my understanding, it references the Y axis of 1920x1080, since that is "close enough" to 1000. 2K is usually referring to 2560x1440, where neither numbers are close to 2000. 4K is 3840×2160, where the X axis is somewhat close to 4000, but that doesn't follow the same pattern as "1K". It just keeps getting worse from there.

But, you do have a point that this naming scheme won't end up obsoleted. It will end up being meaningless, but it can keep going.

[leipero]

...And here I am - with 3x Monitors. One (23") is broken and the two I use is a 19" CRT from 1999 at 1280x1024 resolution (the one I use to write this on) and a 23" LCD at 1600x1200. No 4k/8k here and I am perfectly happy with it!

I'm trying to find good CRT, and I can't find it anywhere..., recently when cleaning I've destroyed my good Samsung, and left with the bad one..., there are tons of CRT's with 1024x768_85, but I need at least 1280x960_85, and it seems they all are recycled or dead .