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

[droste]

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.

The <something>K constructs have a weird history and especially 4K is still used to mean two different things, but I think everyone actually settled on this now:

2K=FullHD=1920x1080
4K=2*2K=3840x2160
8K=2*4K=7680x4320

which seems OK to me. BUT now with the new 10K this is all weird again, because it's not 5*2K....

[starshipeleven]

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

USB-C in DisplayPort mode is a DP 1.4, so it can do that already.
Its HDMI alternate mode is HDMI 1.4b which sucks big way if compared to the DP mode.

If you were asking "ALL usb-c ports do also DisplayPort", now that's another thing alltogether.

[schmidtbag]

The <something>K constructs have a weird history and especially 4K is still used to mean two different things, but I think everyone actually settled on this now:

2K=FullHD=1920x1080
4K=2*2K=3840x2160
8K=2*4K=7680x4320

which seems OK to me. BUT now with the new 10K this is all weird again, because it's not 5*2K....

Well this is embarrassing...
Apparently you're right - 2K is actually 1080p. Whenever people mention 2K they always seem to refer to 1440p, which apparently is more accurately known as 2.5K. Pretty annoying that even manufacturers get it wrong. Case in point:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA3FA6A84739&cm_re=2k_monitor-_-24-022-583-_-Product

That came up from a search for "2k monitor".

All that being said, I guess using "#K" is a little less stupid, but, once you get to 8K it does start to lose its meaning.

[starshipeleven]

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.

Yeah that's my point. The naming scheme only needs to convey who is bigger and by how much (roughly) at a glance. Accuracy is not a requirement, as we still have tech specs for that.

While the current system is entirely meaningless arbitrary names.

[starshipeleven]

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 .

why you want a good CRT?

Aren't there enough good IPS screens around?

EDIT: I'm curious, not bashing you.

[schmidtbag]

why you want a good CRT?

Aren't there enough good IPS screens around?

EDIT: I'm curious, not bashing you.

There are actually still good reasons to want CRTs. From what I recall, CRTs have crazy good response times, they don't have ghosting effects, even crappy ones allow refresh rates up to 75Hz, and they're pretty good at most viewing angles. To my understanding, the only displays that can fully obsolete CRTs are OLEDs.

All that being said, I'm glad CRTs are pretty much entirely phased out. I don't care enough about their advantages to revert back to one. Maybe if I were a hardcore CS:GO player on a budget, I'd get one.

[starshipeleven]

The <something>K constructs have a weird history and especially 4K is still used to mean two different things, but I think everyone actually settled on this now:

2K=FullHD=1920x1080
4K=2*2K=3840x2160
8K=2*4K=7680x4320

which seems OK to me. BUT now with the new 10K this is all weird again, because it's not 5*2K....

I always thought it was a short form of the horizontal resolution, assuming a 16:9 screen.

FullHD isn't a k (also because it would conflict with 2k)

2k is generic catch-all for anything from 2048 to 2999 pixels of horizontal resolution

4k is 3840x2160

10k is 10240x4320

and so on and so forth.

[calc]

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 .

I used to have an IBM P260 before switching to IPS LCDs over a decade ago. It was very nice and could do 2048x1536 with tweaks, highest preset mode was apparently 1920x1440 80Hz. Looks like you can still buy them online occasionally.

[starshipeleven]

There are actually still good reasons to want CRTs. From what I recall, CRTs have crazy good response times, they don't have ghosting effects, even crappy ones allow refresh rates up to 75Hz, and they're still pretty good at most viewing angles. To my understanding, the only displays that can fully obsolete CRTs are OLEDs.

Afaik the LCDs have closed the gap significantly, now it's common to find IPS monitors rated at 1-2 ms (which is still not microseconds, but isn't 40 ms either like older IPS panels), and many non-shit LCD monitors can go to 75 Hz too (without taking gaming ones).

[theriddick]

Still waiting for those well priced korean 4k@120 DP freesync monitors to show up.