HDMI vs DisplayPort....better,worse,the same?

B&W802d

This is a cable question for those who can shed some insight on this topic. I am a believer in cables making a difference. As far as HDMI cables are concerned for the average consumer the overall concensus seems to be that a $10.00 Monoprice HDMI cable is just as good as a $100.00-$200.00 HDMI cable. If you are getting a picture with it it is working fine. Ok, I believe that. My question is for those that have used DisplayPort cables with their video equipment. Any picture differences? Better,worse? What's the verdict?

B&W802d

I ask this question as I do quite a bit of gaming. I know for monitors this will be an advantage at crazy resolutions. Not so much for 1080p displays for home use. The displayport cable supports resolutions of up to 3840x2160p (just like HMDI) but the refresh rate is 60hz as opposed to HDMI at 30hz. That's 4 times the resolution HDMI can offer. For audio, HDMI 1.4 can do 10.2gbps where displayport can do 17.2 gbps. I hope someone can shed a little insight on this. Thanks.

polkfarmboy

For shorter runs they are just the same

mantis

Usually cable topics end up in measuring contest and name calling around here but I will give you some professional advise on cables in general and more to the point of your question.
So in general cables do make a difference and I'm going to explain why. First off analog signals are hard to transfer without messing it up. They tend to travel down the wire path but are able to pick up other signals like EMI and RF. When this happens the signal that is being sent from A to B is not the same signal anymore and you lose performance. When a analog cable can reject outside interference and has the ability to send the entire signal it's asked to do correctly or by spec, your done. Their is nothing you can do to make it any better. So analog cables make sure you purchase cables that are to spec and are properly terminated. This is where 90% of cables fail in the termination.

For Digital cables basically the same rule applies. The cable must be able to to the job it's asked to do correctly without losing or adding anything during the transfer. Once a cable can achieve this their is nothing better a so called "better cable" can do. Spec is spec.

HDMI cables have ratings. This applies from HDMI 1.0 to HDMI 1.4 spec's. Depending on your system , you should have the correct cable for the job. Standard speed and High speed cable spec's also apply. So just getting a picture and your done theory is not fully true.

Display port cables again same thing. By cables that can get the job done to spec. Once this is achieved , I believe I have made my point.

Over the years I have gone back and forth with cable manufactures Electrical engineers. They all have a common goal but the path to achieve this goal can be very different then the next. I find it extremely difficult to fully understand the theory behind some of these engineers and how different the ideas are to achieve the same exact goal.
I also believe that some of it is a play on words , using color and "cool Looking" things to attract buyers. As long as they get the job done correctly , I'm cool with the "extra" visual of pretty cables. How willing one is to pay for this lies in the one with the check book.

So bottom line there isn't a so called "verdict" in cables. As long as they exist in our system , we will always have something to debate or argue about who does it the right way and who is the clown.

B&W802d

polkfarmboy wrote: »

For shorter runs they are just the same

For shorter runs you would not need a repeater, I agree. But even with shorter runs the displayport is able to double the refresh rate (60hz vs 30 hz for HDMI at really high resolutions). Refresh rate is as important for gaming as ping times imo. I want the best picture available so when I am sniping I can see the smallest detail clearly.