← Back to context

Comment by eikenberry

20 hours ago

AMD. The final holdout, HDMI 2.1 support being blocked by the HDMI group, has been overcome w/ the HDMI group relenting and support is now landing in the kernel (expected in 7.2).

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2026/05/further-expanded-amd-h...

40 comments

eikenberry

Reply
somat  20 hours ago

I sort of figured that HDMI stupidity was strategically a good thing as it sort of brought the dynamic of the HDMI consortium and VESA. specifically how they treat the end users, more to the public eye.

That is, more people being subtly pushed to using display port is not a bad thing.

  • _puk  20 hours ago

    I was faintly surprised that my recent monitor purchase came with a displayport cable.

    Didn't help connecting it to my Macbook, but still..

    • esseph  19 hours ago

      DisplayPort has been running the best PC high end monitors for a long while. HDMI OTOH has been in A/V land (DRM management).

perching_aix  20 hours ago

I didn't follow this story much: how exactly did they get past the legal hurdles? Or there never actually were any hurdles, just sabre rattling?

  • JCTheDenthog  19 hours ago

    Purely rumor, but supposedly Valve put tons of pressure on them (no idea by what means, again this is all rumor) because they wanted support for the Steam Machine release.

cute_boi  20 hours ago

any reason why we are using hdmi over display port?

  • ThatPlayer  20 hours ago

    Unless you're on the absolute newest stuff with DisplayPort 2.1, HDMI 2.1 has more bandwidth than DP1.4. That'll be Nvidias 2000 through 4000 series. No DisplayPort 2.1 until the RTX 5000s.

    And then monitors released during this time generally do the same too.

    Also if you want to use it through a capture card, HDMI ones are way more common and cheaper

  • bisby  20 hours ago

    Some people have TVs or displays that only use HDMI. I personally wouldn't recommend HDMI if DisplayPort is available, but if HDMI is your only option, then having it work properly will be important.

  • eikenberry  20 hours ago

    My monitor has 1 displayport and 2 hdmi and I have 2 computers I use with it. They can't share the displayport. All comparable monitors (last time I checked) have the same. So it'd be nice if both worked.

  • jaxefayo  20 hours ago

    For one, DisplayPort doesn’t support HDR output

    • hmry  20 hours ago

      That can't be right. I'm reading this comment on an HDR monitor over DP right now.

      Don't all USB-C video outputs use DP alt mode too, with an HDMI adapter at the end? And they can do HDR.

      1 reply →

    • funimpoded  20 hours ago

      The cable length limitations are also a pain in the ass for not-uncommon A/V system configurations. 6' recommended max, and the best you might get working stably if the device and cable gods smile on you is 15'. 6' is the lower edge of acceptable for just about any A/V system setup (in practice it means your devices need to be within about a meter of the screen's port[s], which is pretty close) and even 15' is still too short to be useful for, say, a projector, or a "the A/V receiver or HDMI switch is over in that cabinet, the TV is on this wall across the room" situation.

      HDMI goes 25'+, no problem.

      2 replies →

    • john_strinlai  19 hours ago

      displayport has supported HDR10 since 2016

      and displayport 2.0, since 2019, has supported all the same variations (hdr10+, dolby vision) that HDMI does

    • Gracana  20 hours ago

      Do you mean in practice, or something? DP definitely supports HDR, and it seems to work fine for me.

    • Sohcahtoa82  12 hours ago

      Confidently incorrect.

      My main monitor is 4K 240 hz HDR and it works great on my DisplayPort cable, especially the HDR.