HDMI 2.0 is "no longer referenced" everything is now HDMI 2.1 [Edit: HDMA 2.1a]

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, tikker said:

If its about the document then it means USB 3.2 indeed doesn't exist. It means we are at version 3.2 of the USB spec currently, and that when 3.3 comes around every 3.X port out there will be 3.3.

Yes, that's exactly how it is. 3.2 is just the version of the specification (the document) for how USB devices are designed and works. Or well, it's not exactly how it is with USB.

 

Let's say I am going to create a USB device like a memory stick. This is how I would do it.

1) I obtain the USB 3.2 specifications from the USB-IF (need to be a member to get this).

2) I design the hardware and software according to the specifications in the document.

3) I submit my device to the USB-IF Compliance Program. Here, the device needs to pass a wide range of testing. For example here are the details on how USB 4 is tested for electrical compliance. Theses tests are done on various locations, for example at authorized test labs, USB-IF sometimes hold compliance workshops, for the big manufacturers they sometimes can do their own certification, etc.

4) If my device passes the tests, it gets added to the USB Integrator's List and I am now able to (legally) use the USB-IF trademarks and logos on my device.

5) If USB-IF releases version 3.3 of their specifications, my device needs to be re-tested if I want to advertise it as USB 3.3 compliant. It is possible that the USB 3.3 specifications do not contain a mode that matches the USB 3.2 specs I followed when I designed my device, and if USB 3.3 don't have that my device will fail the certification. As a result, I will only be able to advertise it as a USB 3.2 device, since that's the spec it follows. In the case of USB 3.X, I think the USB-IF carried over all the old specs to the new specs whenever they re-released it so recertifying devices was never an issue, but in theory it could have happened.

 

 

 

Basically, you can think of the USB specs as a word document.

The USB-IF wrote the original specs and named the document "USB-3.0.docx".

Then they realized "hey, we can double the bandwidth if we do this", so they opened the word document, added a couple of paragraphs and then saved it as "USB-3.1.docx".

 

Why don't they just save the document as "USB-3.0.docx" again, overwriting the old document? Because while that would work as long as they just add new stuff, it would cause a bunch of issues if they were to go back and for example replace some text in the middle of the specifications. If they did that, then all of a sudden old devices designed following the first release of the document would no longer actually follow the USB standard they were once certified for.

 

Why not have a base "USB-3.0.docx" document for the 5Gbps specs, one "USB-3.1.docx" document for the 10Gbps specs, and one document called "USB-3.2.docx" for the 20Gbps specs? Because it wouldn't really solve anything, and would just add a bunch of complexity for keeping track of which document is necessary when designing a device. It's way easier to just have one spec for how to implement all the various modes, and that document contain all the info you need. Right now, that document is called USB 3.2.

You don't want a scenario where designing a 20Gbps device requires "USB-3.0.docx", "USB-3.1.docx" and "USB-3.2.docx" just because you need to pull info from all three documents if you want things like fall-back modes.

 

 

I don't know your background so don't take this personally, I am just talking about people in general.

If you are not used to working with standard documents and specifications then it's very easy to just say "this is overly complicated and it's probably to trick consumers", but the people working on this stuff aren't idiots. There is usually logic to what seems to be utter madness. It's just that it can be hard to grasp why things are the way they are if you don't have the full picture of how these things work.

 

 

59 minutes ago, tikker said:

This whole "it's the spec, not the port" debate probably sounds pedantic, but I do think it would help if the versions we saw on products reflected the expectations of telling us about functionality.

I kind of agree. I think it would be great if products had something that told customers what it was capable of doing. I don't think the USB or HDMI version number should be that though. I think USB-IF has the right idea with the markings that clearly states the speed the port supports, for example 10Gbps.

"USB 10Gbps" is what should tell a customer that a device supports 10Gbps of bandwidth. It shouldn't be "USB 3.1" that tells a customer that it supports 10Gbps.

 

Likewise, I think the HDMI forum should introduce a label for which performance tier something supports.

I shouldn't have to know that HDMI 2.1 is when they introduced support for 4K at 120Hz. There should just be a logo that says "HDMI 4K 120Hz" or something along those lines. Maybe something similar to the AV1 decoder levels. Just spit balling ideas right now, but it could look something like this:

 

That's way easier for people to understand than requiring them to keep track of which version introduced support for what resolution.

[Quackers101]

but why isn't there a own standard for the port or market certain features or what sounds like claims as actual specs of a certain item. Like "super ultra speed cable" oh yeah this is the official naming of it.

[tikker]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know your background so don't take this personally, I am just talking about people in general.

If you are not used to working with standard documents and specifications then it's very easy to just say "this is overly complicated and it's probably to trick consumers", but the people working on this stuff aren't idiots. There is usually logic to what seems to be utter madness. It's just that it can be hard to grasp why things are the way they are if you don't have the full picture of how these things work.

I have a science background and maintain/deploy our software stack on the side.  I've been trying to push containers and proper versioning on people as it was a mess, so I'd like to see myself as at least past the point of "this is overly complicated". I see the logic in the versioning here and think it's a good thing that the spec is versioned.

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Likewise, I think the HDMI forum should introduce a label for which performance tier something supports.

I shouldn't have to know that HDMI 2.1 is when they introduced support for 4K at 120Hz. There should just be a logo that says "HDMI 4K 120Hz" or something along those lines. Maybe something similar to the AV1 decoder levels. Just spit balling ideas right now, but it could look something like this:

An easy to interpret graphic would be best indeed (and I realise potentially tricky to design with all the features available). They are partly there with cables already. Would be nice to see something similar on devices with ports.

11 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

but why isn't there a own standard for the port or market certain features or what sounds like claims as actual specs of a certain item. Like "super ultra speed cable" oh yeah this is the official naming of it.

For cables they already have that. The High Speed, Premium High Speed and Ultra High Speed certicifactions indicate its bandwidth capabilities.

[whm1974]

What can't They Stick to naming conventions that actually make sense? Personally I wouldn't up with a new one unless there is a noticeable improvement notice by Users.

[tikker]

23 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

What can't They Stick to naming conventions that actually make sense? Personally I wouldn't up with a new one unless there is a noticeable improvement notice by Users.

That's what they're doing. It's updated with new features and functionality, so the version number increases. The problem is that consumers and manufactures started using those numbers wrongly. They use "thing built according to version X of this spec" as " version X of this thing". It's a subtle difference, but a difference nontheless.

[whm1974]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

That's what they're doing. It's updated with new features and functionality, so the version number increases. The problem is that consumers and manufactures started using those numbers wrongly. They use "thing built according to version X of this spec" as " version X of this thing". It's a subtle difference, but a difference nontheless.

While not much can be done with Consumers, They can enforce Standards Naming among Manufactures and Vendors. In other words the Spec Description has to be accurate with correct naming.

[Quackers101]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

For cables they already have that. The High Speed, Premium High Speed and Ultra High Speed certicifactions indicate its bandwidth capabilities.

Which is a stupid and dont tell anything to the consumer. Only that their labels might show something like "verification", but the naming just sounds sus if you dont know about their legit marketing terms for the product. Not a term that is used to just make it sound more expensive than it is.

 

Compared to "USB verified 10 gbps"

Or stuff like LAwLz mentioned

[tikker]

38 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

While not much can be done with Consumers, They can enforce Standards Naming among Manufactures and Vendors. In other words the Spec Description has to be accurate with correct naming.

Yep, I agree it would be good if something would actually be enforced regarding marketing. At least to some baseline. It's totally fine and helpful to me to be able to see it was built against the 2.1 spec, but for someone who doesn't care I just want to see if it has feature X or can deliver speed Y.

20 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

Which is a stupid and dont tell anything to the consumer. Only that their labels might show something like "verification", but the naming just sounds sus if you dont know about their legit marketing terms for the product. Not a term that is used to just make it sound more expensive than it is.

 

Compared to "USB verified 10 gbps"

Or stuff like LAwLz mentioned

Having labels that show verification is extremely important and the main point of this situation. That is what makes it so that for HDMI cables you can meaningfully tell someone that to use their shiny new top-of-the line 4k TV for gaming with their PC/console they should get an Ultra High Speed HDMI cable, because that certification actually means something.

 

Those names are the legit marketing terms and the confusion has arisen from using "HDMI 2.1" as the marketing term instead. That's why I think it would be good if they have a device-side equal of this certification and be a bit more direct about enforcing it.

[whm1974]

29 minutes ago, tikker said:

Yep, I agree it would be good if something would actually be enforced regarding marketing. At least to some baseline. It's totally fine and helpful to me to be able to see it was built against the 2.1 spec, but for someone who doesn't care I just want to see if it has feature X or can deliver speed Y.

Having labels that show verification is extremely important and the main point of this situation. That is what makes it so that for HDMI cables you can meaningfully tell someone that to use their shiny new top-of-the line 4k TV for gaming with their PC/console they should get an Ultra High Speed HDMI cable, because that certification actually means something.

 

Those names are the legit marketing terms and the confusion has arisen from using "HDMI 2.1" as the marketing term instead. That's why I think it would be good if they have a device-side equal of this certification and be a bit more direct about enforcing it.

I wonder if Governments can enforce actual Standards by Law? Fraud prevention for example.

[sounds]

A perfect example is AMD's announcement of the Ryzen 6000 CPUs:

 

(The timestamp to watch is at 16:15)

 

Quoting from the video:

Quote

HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 2 are available as well...

 

AMD didn't provide any specifics:

• Does it support HDMI FRL?
• Does it support HDMI HDR10+?
• Does it support HDMI Dolby Vision?
• Does it support HDMI Variable Refresh Rates?
• Does it support HDMI Auto Low Latency Mode?

Here's my analysis: AMD's Ryzen 6000 CPUs will support the raw display outputs, but will not include native support for HDMI at all. A companion chip will be required, and the specs will be limited by what that companion chip supports. Rather than set minimum requirements on their board partners, AMD has chosen to go with the vague and useless "HDMI 2.1" badge. So frustrating!