Amazon:
Me: Not at THAT price...
Note this is a Fiber Optic Cable hence the price. Only real advantage to Fiber Optic as far as I can tell is high bandwidth usage at longer range
-
@paddy-stone A lot of these cables seem to be marketed not just for 4k, but also HDR 10 with a bunch of Color certifications (that are completely lost on me becasue I dont understand any of them) which consume a lot of bandwidth across the entire cable. From what I've seen, most copper cables can handle even these up to about 2m (6ft+) but after that, you get signal degradation or loss, which is where either some sort of active cable or Fiber optic cables come in. Regular 4K 60hz should never require a Fiber optic cable
-
Yeah, I get what you're saying but that's a 6ft cable, and HDMI 2.0 is only rated for 18Gbps max IIRC, so fibre really isn't needed at that range IMO. I don't know much about HDR and how it fits in with the HDMi 2.0 spec, but most movies are still 24fps, so even adding the HDR component to the mix, shouldn't increase the need that much.
Now if it was HDMI 2.1, then I can see the possible need for fibre as the spec for that is 48Gbps, which is 2.6X the bandwidth of HDMI 2.0.
I found this sheet from this blog about HDR and data rate etc
https://community.cedia.net/blogs/david-meyer/2018/05/16/hdmi-data-rates-for-4k-hdr
Basically HDR isn't supported above 4k30 in HDMI 2.0, so that cable is not HDMI 2.0 spec IMO. You need HDMI 2.1 for higher than 18Gbps if that's correct.
-
Pff, You're stupid... but not that stupid.
Thanks @TVwazhere, I can now die in peace knowing I left my mark on this world.