Guide to Display Cables / Adapters (v2)

[Glenwing]

Loading...

How to use: Use the output (left) dropdown only, for general information about an interface (DVI, HDMI, etc.) Use the input (right) dropdown only, to see all options for connecting to a specific port on a display Use both dropdowns for information about a specific adapter combination — make sure they are in the right order!

	Output (Computer / Source)		Input (Monitor / TV / Display)
	DisplayPort HDMI DVI VGA (D-Sub) USB Type-C Thunderbolt 3	← Switch →	DisplayPort HDMI DVI VGA (D-Sub) USB Type-C Thunderbolt 3
(Note: Order matters! Make sure that the Output / Input are in the correct order and not reversed.)

---

 

Back to top    Close

---

Click to Expand:

›	Maximum Refresh Frequency and Resolution of Everything	[Link]
DisplayPort HDMI DVI Thunderbolt 3
Close

›	Which Cable Type Should I Use? (DisplayPort vs. HDMI vs. DVI vs. VGA)	[Link]
Which Cable Type Should I Use? It's generally recommended to avoid using VGA for computer monitors when possible. While it does work fine for most situations, the image quality can be degraded depending on the quality of the cable, and it's relatively easy to damage the cable which often results in color channels dropping out and requiring you to wiggle the cable around, and eventually replace it. On the other hand, VGA can be useful in some situations for consoles, and for using computers/laptops on TVs, since it usually avoids the overscan problems seen with HDMI (where the desktop is cut off on the edges), as well as HDCP compatibility issues that consoles sometimes have. Between DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort: DVI can do up to 1920 × 1080 at 144 Hz or 2560 × 1600 at 60 Hz (using Dual-Link DVI) DVI has a maximum color depth of 24 bit/px (16.7 million colors) DVI does not support any extra features like audio, HDR, or FreeSync But if your monitor's specs don't go beyond these limitations, then there is no difference between using DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort. For a standard monitor which is limited to (for example) 1080p 60 Hz 24 bit/px, all three will produce identical images. So HDMI and DisplayPort don't have better image quality than DVI? That's correct. Between DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort, there is no difference in image quality when the same image settings are used. The difference is that HDMI and DisplayPort support a wider range of possible settings, so they can be used for situations that DVI can't be used for, like 4K 60 Hz or 30 bit/px color depth. But these extra capabilities don't make them any better at doing the other things. Basically it works like this; DVI can do some stuff. HDMI and DisplayPort can do all the stuff that DVI can do, plus some more. But the stuff that they have in common with DVI, they don't do any better than DVI does, it's just that they have extra capabilities beyond that. If you don't have a monitor that actually uses those extra capabilities, then there is no advantage to using DisplayPort or HDMI compared to DVI. At the moment, the vast majority of displays still fall within the capabilities of DVI, so HDMI and DisplayPort are only necessary if you want the extra features like inline audio, or for higher-end display formats like 2560 × 1440 at 144 Hz, or 4K. What about between HDMI and DisplayPort? It's pretty much the same as between DVI and HDMI / DP, just between the different versions of HDMI and DisplayPort instead. There is no difference in image quality between HDMI and DisplayPort. They both produce identical images when the same image settings are used. The choice between HDMI and DisplayPort only matters if one of them (usually HDMI) doesn't support the full specs of your monitor. For example, some 4K displays only have HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.2. Since HDMI 1.4 can't do 4K 60 Hz, but DisplayPort 1.2 can, you should use DisplayPort. However, if the monitor has an HDMI version which does support 4K 60 Hz (like HDMI 2.0), then it doesn't matter whether you use HDMI or DisplayPort. You can check the maximum resolution and refresh frequency of each interface and version here.
Close

›	Connecting to a 120+ Hz Display	[Link]
Index: Which connections can support 120+ Hz? Which one should I use? Isn't HDMI limited to 60 Hz? Can I use a DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter / cable? Can I use a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter / cable? Can I use an HDMI to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter / cable? Can I connect a DVI or HDMI computer / source to a DisplayPort display? I have a BenQ XL2411Z / Acer GN246HL or another 120+ Hz monitor with no DisplayPort input. What should I do? Which connections can support 120+ Hz? In order of preference: (Note that the source device and the display must BOTH support the required HDMI / DisplayPort version. Connections will be limited to the lower version between the two. HDMI and DisplayPort cables themselves do not have "versions", though may have bandwidth limitations. See here for more details on HDMI and DisplayPort cable selection: HDMI DisplayPort) At 1920 × 1080 (2K): DisplayPort (any version) Dual-Link DVI HDMI 1.3 or above (some monitors do not accept >60 Hz over HDMI even if they have an HDMI 1.3+ port. Research your specific display model, most do not support 120+ Hz over HDMI.) At 2560 × 1440 (2.5K): DisplayPort 1.2 or above HDMI 2.0 or above Unofficially, Dual-Link DVI can sometimes work via overclocking (i.e. setting custom resolutions), but don't count on this At 3840 × 2160 (4K): DisplayPort 1.3 or above Which one should I use? A straight DisplayPort connection is the preferred option in all cases. At 1920 × 1080 if DisplayPort is not available, then use Dual-Link DVI. If Dual-Link DVI is not available, you can try HDMI as a last resort, but it is not guaranteed to work for 120+ Hz (it depends on the monitor; some work, some don't). HDMI 1.3 and above are capable of 1080p 120+ Hz, but not all monitors implement this capability, some are limited to 60 Hz over HDMI. At 2560 × 1440 if DisplayPort is not available, then HDMI can be used if the monitor and source both support HDMI 2.0 or above. If the monitor and source do not both support HDMI 2.0 or above, then it will not be possible to use HDMI for 120+ Hz at 2560 × 1440. In this case, it may be possible to use Dual-Link DVI by setting a custom resolution, but it depends on monitor support and is not guaranteed to work. At 3840 × 2160 without compression, DisplayPort 1.3 or 1.4 can be used up to 120 Hz. Frequencies higher than these limits (such as 4K 144 Hz) will require Display Stream Compression (DSC), only supported by DisplayPort 1.4 or higher. Isn’t HDMI limited to 60 Hz? No, HDMI is not limited to 60 Hz. This is a common myth. Many 1080p 120+ Hz displays are capped at 60 Hz over HDMI, but this is a limitation of those particular displays, not a limitation of the HDMI standard. HDMI itself allows unlimited refresh frequencies, and this has been the case since 2005 with HDMI version 1.2. Please refer to the main article here. Conspicuous examples of such displays include the ASUS VG248QE, the BenQ XL2411Z, and the Acer GN246HL. All of these are 1080p 144 Hz monitors with HDMI 1.4a ports, but do not support more than 60 Hz over HDMI. However, other monitors like the ViewSonic XG2401, Nixeus NX-VUE24A, and Samsung C24FG70 do accept 1080p 120+ Hz through HDMI 1.4a. Determining what version of HDMI a monitor supports will not tell you anything about whether the monitor supports 120+ Hz over HDMI or not. Some displays support it, some don't, regardless of version. You will have to research the specific model to find out if it supports 120+ Hz over HDMI. Can I use a DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter / cable? Yes, up to 1080p 120 Hz. Higher modes such as 1080p 144 Hz are not possible through a DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter. The following requirements also apply: The source must have DisplayPort version 1.2 or higher The display must have HDMI version 1.3 or higher The display must support 120+ Hz over HDMI; many displays are limited to 60 Hz over HDMI even if they have an HDMI 1.3+ port, so research your specific display model carefully and make sure it supports >60 Hz over HDMI A Type 2 DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter must be used. Not just any DisplayPort to HDMI adapter will work. Type 1 adapters will be limited to 60 Hz at 1080p. See here for more details. Can I use a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter / cable? No. DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI passive adapters / cables do not actually exist. Even though most DisplayPort to DVI adapters you see for sale are labeled as "Dual-Link", all of these are fake, they are only Single-Link DVI adapters in disguise. The DisplayPort connector has 20 pins, which means it can be used as a Single-Link DVI-D port via a passive adapter. However, Dual-Link DVI requires 25 pins, so a DisplayPort connector does not have enough pins to emulate a Dual-Link DVI connection. The additional DVI pins on "DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI" adapters are not connected to anything at all, they are just for show, for marketing purposes. It is nothing but a Single-Link DVI-D adapter dressed up to appear like a Dual-Link DVI-D adapter. Can I use an HDMI to Dual-Link DVI passive adapter / cable? No, for the same reason as in the above section. HDMI to Dual-Link DVI passive adapters/cables do not exist. HDMI only has 19 pins, like Single-Link DVI-D. Even though most HDMI to DVI adapters you see for sale are "Dual-Link", all of these are fake, they are only Single-Link DVI adapters in disguise. These HDMI to Single-Link DVI passive adapters may work for 120+ Hz if used from a DVI output (computer/source) to an HDMI input (display) because it acts as an HDMI connection when used in this configuration, and HDMI 1.3+ can support 1080p 120 Hz as mentioned previously, but this does require the monitor to accept 120+ Hz over HDMI, so it will not work on monitors like the BenQ XL2411Z or ASUS VG248QE, which are limited to 60 Hz on their HDMI inputs. Can I connect a DVI or HDMI computer / source to a DisplayPort display? Yes. An HDMI to DisplayPort active adapter is required. Please note this is NOT the same as a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. Standard DisplayPort to HDMI adapters are for connecting DisplayPort sources to HDMI displays, not for connecting to DisplayPort displays. I have tested this adapter to work up to a maximum of 2560 × 1440 @ 144 Hz: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FCHQXSQ/ I tested this adapter with an LG 27GL850, using a GeForce GTX 1080. Please note that active adapters tend to be unreliable, and I cannot guarantee the adapter will work on any system. For DVI outputs, there are no DVI to DisplayPort adapters capable of 120+ Hz. I have a BenQ XL2411Z / Acer GN246HL or another 120+ Hz monitor with no DisplayPort input. What should I do? Some 1080p 144 Hz displays, such as the BenQ/Zowie XL2411Z and Acer GN246HL, only have DVI and HDMI inputs, they do not have DisplayPort. Furthermore, the HDMI ports on these monitors are limited to 60 Hz, which means that the Dual-Link DVI port must be used in order to reach 144 Hz on these monitors. This can be problematic for people that want to use these monitors with laptops, or with newer graphics cards that don't have native DVI outputs, or want to set up multiple monitors but don't have enough DVI ports. HDMI-to-DVI and DisplayPort-to-DVI passive adapters will not work, because HDMI and DisplayPort only support passive adapters to Single-Link DVI, which has a maximum of 60 Hz at 1080p. A Dual-Link DVI connection is required for 1080p 120+ Hz. Please also note that many HDMI-to-DVI and DisplayPort-to-DVI passive adapters will be disguised and falsely advertised as "Dual-Link DVI" adapters, so if you think you've found one, you haven't. HDMI and DisplayPort do not support passive adapters to Dual-Link DVI, they are all Single-Link DVI adapters no matter what they say or what they look like. If your computer does not have a native Dual-Link DVI output, then the only other way of getting a Dual-Link DVI connection is with a DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI active adapter. Please note that not just any DP-to-DVI active adapter will work; it must be a Dual-Link DVI active adapter. There are active adapters which only support Single-Link DVI, intended for multi-monitor configurations on some older AMD graphics cards (detailed here), and these adapters will not work for 1080p 120+ Hz. DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI active adapters tend to be unreliable, and should only be used as a last resort if you have no other method of connecting. If you have not purchased your monitor yet I suggest you do not buy the XL2411Z or GN246HL, but instead get a monitor that has a DisplayPort input. I have tested this adapter to work up to 1920 × 1080 @ 144 Hz: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XYBA72/ As always, active adapters tend to be finicky and I cannot guarantee that the adapter will behave the same on your system. My testing was done with an AOC G2460PF and a Radeon RX 480 and GeForce GTX 1080.
Close

›	Active vs. Passive Adapters	[Link]
Index: What's the Difference? (Preface) Passive Adapters Passive adapter compatibility has nothing to do with analog and digital Passive adapter compatibility has nothing to do with bandwidth Passive adapters are not necessarily limited to the lowest common denominator Do passive adapters add any latency? Do passive adapters reduce image quality? Active Adapters Do active adapters add any latency? Do active adapters reduce image quality? How can I tell if an adapter is passive or active? Which type should I use? What's the difference between a passive adapter and an active adapter? (Preface) There are a lot of myths and confusion surrounding passive and active adapters, and there seems to be very little understanding of exactly what they are, how they both work, and how to identify them. Hopefully this article will help clear things up. First, to make some general points clear since there is a lot of misinformation spread around: Passive Adapters: Compatibility is completely arbitrary and is based on how each interface (DVI, HDMI, etc.) is designed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether signals are digital or analog. Passive adapters are not necessarily limited to the lowest common denominator in terms of bandwidth / feature support, etc.; this depends on the specific interfaces involved. Passive adapters may or may not work in both directions; this depends on the specific interfaces involved (DVI, HDMI, etc.), it does not depend on the adapter itself. Active Adapters: Active adapters may or may not require additional power connectors; some do and some don't. Active adapters may or may not be expensive or bulky; some are and some aren't, usually it depends on the specific interfaces being converted, as some conversions are more complex than others. Any two interfaces can (in theory) be connected with an active adapter, although in practice not every conceivable combination of interfaces has an adapter manufactured for it. Capabilities (maximum bandwidth, feature support such as audio, etc.) are limited to the lowest common denominator; if one of the interfaces doesn't support something, it won't carry through an active adapter. Active adapters may or may not work in both directions; it depends on the specific adapter. The vast majority of active adapters only work in one direction, but it is not impossible for an active adapter to be bi-directional. From a technical standpoint, the difference between an active adapter and a passive adapter is in the basic principle of operation. Being able to tell the difference between a passive and active adapter isn't as simple as looking for external features like power cables, bulkiness, or cost. Some active adapters require power cables, but less complex ones can get enough power directly from the port. Some active adapters, like DisplayPort to VGA, can be very inexpensive, compact, reliable, and require no power cables, and for this reason they are often mistaken or mislabeled as "passive adapters". However, these external features are not the criteria which actually define whether an adapter is passive or active. So what is the difference exactly? Well... There are many different signaling formats, or methods of representing and transmitting the information that makes up a video signal. Each different interface (VGA, HDMI, DisplayPort, etc.) uses a different format; they represent the information in different ways. If you (as a system designer) want your device to be able to communicate information to another device which uses a different format, there are two ways for this to happen. You can design your device to be able to communicate using the other device's format (make it "multi-lingual" in a sense), or you can insert a third-party device between them to convert the information from one format to the other en route (a "translator" if you will). A passive adapter works via the first approach, and an active adapters works via the second approach. Passive Adapters A passive adapter works via the first approach described in the preface. As it turns out, the ports on your graphics card or laptop or other source device can output signals in multiple different formats. For example, DisplayPort ports are not just limited to sending DisplayPort signals; they can send signals in the HDMI or DVI formats if required. Of course, the only problem is that the DisplayPort port cannot physically morph itself into an HDMI port to allow you to plug in HDMI cables, so this is why the "passive adapter" is needed; the adapter does not do anything at all to the format of the electrical signal, it is just there to change the shape of the port to allow you to plug the correct cable in. When you use a DisplayPort to HDMI passive adapter, the adapter is not "converting" DisplayPort signals into HDMI signals. The electrical signals coming from the DP port are already in the HDMI format, the adapter is just changing the physical shape of the port. Since passive adapters don't actually do anything themselves, they will only work for some very specific combinations of ports which have been pre-designed with the ability to communicate in other formats. The table below shows which connections are possible using passive adapters: Every Possible Passive Adapter Combination Output Port (Computer / Source) Possible Output Signals Comments DisplayPort → DisplayPort HDMI HDMI version/bandwidth dependent on source device and adapter Single-Link DVI Can be connected to Dual-Link DVI ports, but will still be limited to Single-Link speed HDMI → HDMI Single-Link DVI Can be connected to Dual-Link DVI ports, but will still be limited to Single-Link speed Dual-Link DVI-D → HDMI HDMI version/bandwidth dependent on source device and adapter Single-Link DVI Dual-Link DVI Dual-Link DVI-I → HDMI HDMI version/bandwidth dependent on source device and adapter Single-Link DVI Dual-Link DVI VGA VGA → VGA Can be received by either a VGA input port or a DVI-I input port (DVI-I inputs are very rare, most displays have DVI-D inputs, not DVI-I) This table is an exhaustive list of all possible connections that can be made using passive adapters between DP, HDMI, DVI, and VGA. If it is not listed above, it is not possible with a passive adapter. While output ports can send multiple types of signals, most input ports will only accept signals in their native format. For example, if your display has a DVI-D input, it will only accept DVI signals. This means that you can connect to it from a DisplayPort, HDMI, or DVI output port, because all three of those ports know how to send the DVI signals that the input port requires. On the other hand, if your monitor has a DisplayPort input, you can only connect to it from a DisplayPort source. Neither DVI nor HDMI output ports know how to send DisplayPort signals, so they cannot communicate with just a passive adapter. In this case, an active adapter would be required to convert one of the other signals into the DisplayPort format, since DVI and HDMI ports cannot output DisplayPort signals themselves. The only type of input port that will accept more than one format is DVI-I, which can accept both DVI and VGA signals. However, it is very rare for a display to have a DVI-I input. Almost all DVI ports found on displays are DVI-D. Passive adapter compatibility has nothing to do with analog and digital Something important to notice about the table above is that the compatibility between formats has no relation to whether each format is analog or digital. DisplayPort outputs are capable of sending DVI and HDMI signals, so a passive adapter can be used to connect a DisplayPort output to a DVI or HDMI input. However, DVI and HDMI outputs are not capable of sending DisplayPort signals, so a passive adapter cannot be used to connect a DVI or HDMI output to a DisplayPort input. Just because "they're both digital" doesn't mean passive adapters can be used. DVI-I outputs are capable of sending VGA signals, so a passive adapter can be used to connect a DVI-I output to a VGA input. Just because "one's a digital standard and one's an analog standard" doesn't mean passive adapters can't be used. If your digital standard includes the ability to send analog signals when requested, then it's possible to use passive adapters to an analog standard, and that's all there is to it. People imagine that when one signal is digital and the other is analog, this makes it impossible change one to the other without some processing involved, making passive conversion impossible. Meanwhile if they are both digital, they are more closely related and this makes conversion very simple (insert hand-waving here). This talk about how easy or difficult it is to convert one signal to another is irrelevant here. Converting one signal to another is what an active adapter does. Passive adapters do not convert any signals. Yes, it is true that it's impossible to convert an analog format into a digital format without any processing. That's because it's impossible to convert ANY format to ANY OTHER format without processing. There is no such thing as "passively converting" a signal. It doesn't matter whether it is analog to digital or digital to digital; ANY kind of signal conversion is impossible without an active adapter, period. Passive adapters work because source ports can output video in multiple different formats, so no conversion is necessary. These formats do not have to be related in any way. If you want to know whether or not you can use a passive adapter for a certain format, the answer has nothing to do with the port's other formats. For example, if you want to know whether or not DVI ports can support passive adapters to VGA, DVI being a digital format doesn't have anything to do with VGA adapter support, because the DVI format isn't being used when you're using a passive adapter. The correct question is, "are DVI ports capable of sending VGA signals instead of DVI signals?", and the answer is "yes" (well, it's actually "sometimes", since it's an optional feature). Thus, passive DVI to VGA adapters are possible, despite the DVI format itself being digital. Likewise, if you want to know whether DisplayPort to VGA passive adapters exist or not, asking "is the DisplayPort format digital or analog" is completely irrelevant, because there aren't any DisplayPort signals involved when a passive adapter is used. The question is "are DisplayPort ports capable of sending VGA signals instead of DisplayPort signals?", and the answer is "no", so DisplayPort to VGA passive adapters are therefore not possible. It has nothing to do with the DisplayPort format being digital—that didn't stop DVI—it's simply that unlike DVI, DisplayPort wasn't designed with the ability to send VGA signals as an alternative. There are no rules of thumb, like "digital to digital is possible passively, analog to digital isn't". The compatibility of passive adapters is completely arbitrary and just comes down to what capabilities each video standard was designed with. Passive adapter compatibility has nothing to do with bandwidth Another surprise to most people is that DisplayPort 1.2 doesn't support passive adapters to HDMI 2.0, or that DisplayPort and HDMI don't support passive adapters to Dual-Link DVI, only to Single-Link DVI. Upon being informed of this, the response is usually something along the lines of "well that doesn't make any sense; they're both digital, and the bandwidth of DisplayPort is greater than Dual-Link DVI / HDMI 2.0, etc. so a passive adapter should work!" But again, this is based on a misunderstanding of how passive adapters work. People imagine that a passive DP to DVI adapter is "converting" DisplayPort signals into DVI signals, as if the image is originally sent as a DisplayPort signal and an adapter transforms it into an equivalent Dual-Link DVI signal, which should work because any Dual-Link DVI data stream will "fit" inside a DisplayPort signal since the bandwidth of DisplayPort is greater than that of DL-DVI. This is all very sensible sounding, and is a wonderful description of how an active adapter works, not a passive adapter. A passive adapter does not "convert" a signal from format to another. The original signal is sent in the desired format to begin with, and the adapter is just changing the physical shape of the port so that the correct cables can be plugged in. In a DisplayPort to DVI (or HDMI to DVI) passive adapter, the DisplayPort output port is essentially used as a DVI port; all of the pins are used to send the same electrical signals that a DVI port's pins would (more or less). Of course, the DisplayPort port is still shaped like a DisplayPort port and so DVI cables will not fit—that's what the passive adapter is needed for—but electrically it is acting as a DVI port. But a DisplayPort port also only has 20 pins (compared to 19 pins on SL-DVI-D and 25 pins on DL-DVI-D), so it can only send signals that a Single-Link DVI port would send; it is physically impossible for it to send Dual-Link DVI signals in this manner, because it simply doesn't have enough pins to send the same signals that a DL-DVI port would. HDMI ports (which have 19 pins) are also subject to the same restriction; they can only send Single-Link DVI signals, not Dual-Link. And again a similar concept applies to DisplayPort to HDMI adapters; many people are perplexed when they discover that DisplayPort 1.2 only supports passive adapters up to HDMI 1.4. "But DP 1.2 has more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0!" Yes it does—but since adapters don't work by "converting" DisplayPort signals into equivalent HDMI signals, it doesn't matter if HDMI 2.0 signals "fit" inside a DisplayPort 1.2 signal. The bandwidth of a DisplayPort signal is irrelevant, because there are no DisplayPort signals involved at all when using passive adapters. The correct question is "do DisplayPort 1.2 ports know how to send HDMI 2.0 signals?", and the answer is no (mainly because DisplayPort 1.2 was published in 2010 and HDMI 2.0 wasn't published until 2013). Passive adapters are not necessarily limited to the lowest common denominator Another bit of seemingly sensible wisdom which turns out to be not always true is that when using a passive adapter you'll be limited to lowest capabilities of the two interfaces involved. For example, if using a DVI to HDMI adapter, many people will tell you that audio won't work. After all, DVI signals contain no audio, and converting an audio-free signal to the HDMI format won't make audio magically appear. But again, this is based on the idea that an adapter "converts" DVI signals into HDMI signals, so this is information that applies to active adapters, not passive adapters. When using a passive adapter from a DVI source to an HDMI display, the output device detects an HDMI display and sends HDMI signals to it, including audio. Whether DVI signals contain audio or not is irrelevant, because there are no DVI signals involved. The adapter isn't "converting" DVI signals into HDMI signals, the signals are sent in the HDMI format to begin with. While it is sometimes true that you'll be limited to the lowest capabilities between the two interfaces, it isn't always true. Check the specific adapter combination you are wondering about using the dropdown interface at the top of this guide. Do passive adapters add any latency? No. Do passive adapters reduce image quality? No. Active Adapters Active adapters use the second approach described in the preface; both the source device and the display send/receive signals in their native formats, but there is a device in the middle (the adapter) which converts the information from one format to the other. Active adapters are required for any combination of ports that isn't possible with passive adapters (as listed above). Active adapters have also been used in some situations historically to circumenvent limitations of passive adapters; for example, some older AMD graphics cards could support up to 6 monitors, but only maximum of two could be using DVI/HDMI signals (including sending DVI/HDMI signals through a DisplayPort port via a passive adapter); the rest had to use native DisplayPort output. DisplayPort to DVI/HDMI active adapters were useful in this case to allow additional DVI/HDMI connections, since the graphics card would send native DisplayPort signals, which were then intercepted by the adapter and converted to the DVI/HDMI format en route. Active adapters have a processor which converts between the two formats, so they are more expensive than passive adapters and may require a power cable, depending on the complexity of the conversion. Since active adapters convert information from one format into its equivalent in a different format, they are limited only to the features and capabilities supported by both formats. This means active adapters won't support anything that isn't supported by both sides of the connection, including limitations on maximum bandwidth, audio support, and any other features such as G-Sync or daisy-chaining. In addition, certain active adapters may have their own limitations depending on what the signal processor can handle. For example, many (but not all) HDMI to DisplayPort active adapters are limited to 1920 × 1200 at 60 Hz. Even though both connections can go beyond that, the processor used inside those adapters can’t process data quickly enough to do more than that. For 1440p or 4K resolutions, even more expensive adapters with more powerful processors must be used. Active adapters usually only work in one direction. An active adapter that receives a VGA signal and converts it to the HDMI format usually isn’t equipped to receive HDMI signals and turn them into VGA instead. When purchasing an active adapter, read the product description carefully. In theory, any signal can be converted to any other signal with an active adapter, so there are no limitations on what can be done if active adapters are involved. Do active adapters add any latency? Depends on the adapter, but usually they do not add any meaningful amount of latency. Do active adapters reduce image quality? No. But when converting between two different formats the image quality will only be as good as the worse format. How can I tell if an adapter is passive or active? Some people think that "active adapter" means it has an additional plug for power, but this is not the case. If an adapter needs a power cable, it is definitely an active adapter, but if it doesn't need a power cable, it could still be either an active or a passive adapter. It is not possible to tell the difference between them by looking at them, because "active" and "passive" aren't defined by any external feature, as explained above. Some active adapters may have conversion circuitry so small that it can be powered from the port and embedded in the cable termination, so that it appears just like any normal passive adapter cable. Sometimes it isn't possible to tell whether an adapter is active or passive, but there are some steps you can take to rule out one or the other. Only specific combinations of ports are possible with passive adapters, listed in the table a few paragraphs above. If the adapter you are looking at isn't a type listed on that table, it must be an active adapter (or fake). If it is a combination listed on that table, then it could be either passive or active. Usually the product description will tell you, but if it doesn't, you should generally assume it is passive, because companies don't normally make active adapters for port combinations that can already be done using passive adapters. However, there are some exceptions to this. Even though DisplayPort supports passive adapters to HDMI and Single-Link DVI, there are many active adapters also available for these combinations due to restrictions on multi-monitor configurations on some older AMD graphics cards (see here). So DisplayPort to DVI adapters or DisplayPort to HDMI adapters may either be passive or active; reading the product description will usually tell you. In addition sometimes active adapters may be required between DisplayPort and HDMI depending on which versions you want; for example, DisplayPort 1.2 does support passive adapters to HDMI, but only up to HDMI 1.4; to get a full HDMI 2.0 connection from DisplayPort 1.2, you need an active adapter. More specific information on what combinations are supported with passive adapters can be found by entering a specific combination of ports in the dropdown menus at the top of this guide. Which type should I use? If a passive adapter is possible for the configuration you want (check using the utility at the top of this guide), then usually you should use the passive adapter. Active adapters tend to be more expensive and less reliable, and only exist for situations where passive adapters won't work.
Close

›	Active Adapter Requirements for Multi-Monitor Configurations	[Link]
Certain older AMD graphics cards require a native DisplayPort connection or DisplayPort active adapters to connect more than 2 monitors. This limitation ONLY applies to certain older AMD graphics cards. NVIDIA graphics cards have never had this limitation, and newer AMD graphics cards also no longer have it. DisplayPort / DP active adapters are not required for multi-monitor configurations unless you have one of the AMD graphics cards listed further down. Graphics cards with this limitation can still support 3+ monitors, but only a maximum of two may be connected through any combination of the following: VGA DVI HDMI Any active or passive adapters from VGA / DVI / HDMI to anything else DisplayPort to DVI / HDMI passive adapters (Please note that the convention for talking about adapters is "<source> to <display>", so for example the term "DisplayPort to DVI adapter" means an adapter that connects a DisplayPort output (PC/laptop/etc.) to a DVI display, not the other way around. Most adapters are not reversible, so a DisplayPort to DVI adapter is not the same thing as a DVI to DisplayPort adapter.) If your graphics card has this limitation, then any additional monitors beyond 2 must be connected with one of the following: DisplayPort / Mini DisplayPort connection DisplayPort to VGA / DVI / HDMI active adapter The following graphics cards are subject to the limitation described above: AMD Radeon R7 370 AMD Radeon R7 240, R7 250, R7 250X, R7 265, R9 270, R9 270X, R9 280, and R9 280X AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5000, 6000, 7000, and 8000 series Some of these graphics cards, particularly low-end models such as the R7 240, often do not have a DisplayPort output. In that case, it is not possible to set up 3 independent displays. The following graphics cards do not support more than 2 monitors at all (regardless of whether DisplayPort or active DP adapters are used): NVIDIA GeForce GT 610, GT 620, GT 630 (Fermi version), and GT 705 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 500 series and below ATI Radeon HD 4000 series and below
Close

›	Do HDMI Cables Have Versions?	[Link]
Do HDMI cables have versions? There are differences between various HDMI cables, but they are not classified by "HDMI version" because that would not be an accurate way of distinguishing the different cable types. HDMI cables, for the most part, all have the same internal design, the same wiring layout, etc. There is one exception to that which is the "HDMI with Ethernet" cable; these are wired slightly differently (pin 14, a reserved pin in normal cables, is connected and formed into a twisted pair with pin 19). However, the inline ethernet feature has pretty much never been used in any product, so this distinction can be ignored. "HDMI with Ethernet" cables are still fully compatible with all other HDMI devices and don't affect any other aspect of the connection, so it doesn't matter if your cable is a "with Ethernet" version or not. Although HDMI cables all have the same design and wiring, that doesn't mean they will all function identically. Higher resolutions and higher refresh rates both increase the amount of data that needs to be transmitted across the cable, and cables have limits to how much data per second they can handle (bandwidth). As the signaling frequency increases, the signal starts to drop off and becomes more and more difficult to read on the other end, and eventually it will be too degraded to recover the data. Different cables have different limits to how high of a frequency they can transmit reliably, depending on the manufacturing tolerances and length of the cable. So in this sense, the quality of a cable does matter, since cables with more tightly controlled manufacturing will be capable of facilitating bandwidth levels beyond what lesser quality cables can handle. However, there is no need to shop for expensive "high-quality" cables hoping to get one that can handle as much as possible. It's worth pointing out the HDMI ports on your devices have limits too, based on the version; For example, HDMI 1.4 ports have a maximum of 10.2 Gbit/s, and HDMI 2.0 ports have a maximum of 18.0 Gbit/s. You won't get more bandwidth than that out of those ports no matter what cable you use, so getting cables that advertise super high bandwidth ("27.0 Gbit/s!") won't give you any benefit compared to an 18.0 Gbit/s cable. As long as the cable is good enough to handle the maximum bandwidth of your ports, there's nothing further to be gained from a better cable. To avoid any guessing games as to how much bandwidth a cable can handle, the creators of the HDMI standard have established certifications for cables that have been tested to handle a certain amount of bandwidth. These certification levels are conveniently matched with the maximum limits of various HDMI versions (with the exception of the Standard Speed certification, which is only about half the maximum bandwidth of HDMI 1.0–1.2, but nobody makes Standard Speed HDMI cables anyway). HDMI Cable Certification Levels Cable Type HDMI Versions Matched With1 Bandwidth Tested At Equivalent to (approx.)... Standard Speed HDMI Cable - 2.2275 Gbit/s 720p @ 60 Hz 1080p @ 30 Hz High Speed HDMI Cable 1.3 10.2 Gbit/s 1080p @ 144 Hz 1440p @ 75 Hz 2160p @ 30 Hz 1.3a 1.4 1.4a 1.4b Premium High Speed HDMI Cable 2.0 18.0 Gbit/s 1080p @ 240 Hz 1440p @ 144 Hz 2160p (4K) @ 60 Hz 2.0a 2.0b Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable 2.1 48.0 Gbit/s 2160p (4K) @ 144 Hz 4320p (8K) @ 50 Hz 1 The maximum speed guaranteed by this certification tier is exactly the maximum speed of these HDMI versions There are no other classifications for HDMI cables besides those. HDMI cables are only rated by bandwidth because they only affect bandwidth. Feature support, such as 3D, HDR, FreeSync, or audio is not affected by the cable and will work on anything (with the aforementioned exception of Ethernet, which requires an HDMI with Ethernet cable). Since multiple versions of HDMI have the same maximum bandwidth, there is not a separate type of cable for every version. There are no "HDMI 1.3 cables" and "HDMI 1.4 cables" for example. Both of those versions have the same maximum bandwidth, 10.2 Gbit/s, so are therefore both covered by the same type of cable, a High Speed HDMI cable. If you have a device or display with an HDMI port of any version between 1.3 and 1.4b, then any HDMI cable with a High Speed certification will handle any signals your devices might send. If you have devices with HDMI 2.0–2.0b ports, then a High Speed HDMI cable may or may not work, since they have only been tested up to 10.2 Gbit/s. That doesn't mean they won't work at 18.0 Gbit/s, it just means it's not guaranteed to. Premium High Speed cables on the other hand have been tested at 18.0 Gbit/s, and therefore are certain to handle anything that comes out of an HDMI 2.0–2.0b port. You said some cables can handle more bandwidth than others because the signals don't degrade as much in higher quality cables. But isn't cable quality irrelevant because digital signals are immune to interference? All electrical signals are subject to interference, regardless of whether that signal is representing information analagously or digitally. However, if the information is being represented digitally then the signal distortion caused by interference can be corrected, and the final result is no different than if there were no interference in the first place. While this does effectively eliminate the effects of interference, it does not prevent the interference from being there, and if the signal is distorted so much that it is beyond recognition and can't be corrected, then it will suddenly stop working. This matters for cables because higher bandwidth formats like 4K 60 Hz will experience worse signal loss than lower formats like 1080p 60 Hz. Therefore, a cable that can reliably transmit 1080p 60 Hz video won't necessarily be able to do 4K as well. The increased signal loss with the higher format may be enough to cross the threshold into being too distorted to recover. Aren't the names "High Speed HDMI Cable", "Premium High Speed HDMI Cable", and so forth just meaningless made-up marketing names? No, these are official names for the various cable tiers, established directly by the HDMI specification. Refer to HDMI 1.4 page 11, section 4.1.1. The Premium High Speed certification was added in 2015 as a standalone release (here), not part of any of the HDMI specification documents. Didn't the HDMI creators say that any High Speed HDMI cable will handle the full 18.0 Gbit/s of the HDMI 2.0 spec? Isn't the whole "Premium High Speed" cable just a made-up marketing thing? On the initial release of HDMI 2.0, it is true the HDMI creators did say that existing High Speed HDMI cables would be able to handle the full 18.0 Gbit/s of HDMI 2.0: Can existing HDMI cables support the higher bandwidths of HDMI 2.0 Specification? Yes, existing High Speed HDMI Cables (wire only) will support the new higher bandwidths (up to 18Gbps). Does HDMI 2.0 require new cables? No, HDMI 2.0 features will work with existing HDMI cables. Higher bandwidth features, such as 4K@50/60 (2160p) video formats, will require existing High Speed HDMI cables (Category 2 cables). However, this has since been shown to not always be true. While many High Speed cables do work fine at the full 18 Gbit/s speed, it is not guaranteed. Some do and some don't. The reason most High Speed certified cables still work at 18 Gbit/s is because cables are usually offered in several lengths which are all cut from the same cable stock. Signal loss increases with distance (and conversely, decrease with lower distance), so when cable manufacturers chose cable that can handle High Speed certification requirements at 10 metres, the 2- and 3-metre cuts of that cable will often handle even higher speeds. Certifications obtained for one cable are valid for all shorter versions of that cable, so a manufacturer will submit their longest version and obtain a High Speed certification for that entire product line, and may not bother to submit the shorter versions individually to get Premium High Speed certifications for those. Also they usually want you to buy one of their more expensive cables for higher formats like 4K, and so they don't want their lower-end cables to have Premium certifications even though the short versions may be perfectly capable of 18 Gbit/s operation. I would recommend reading these articles for more detail: https://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/bad-reasons-to-upgrade-hdmi-cable.htm http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/note-about-hdmi-2.htm http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/premium-hdmi-cable.htm
Close

›	Is HDMI Limited to 60 Hz?	[Link]
Is HDMI Limited to 60 Hz? No, HDMI is not limited to 60 Hz. Only HDMI 1.0 and 1.1 were restricted to specific formats (which were all 60 Hz and under), but this restriction was removed in HDMI 1.2 (§6.1) all the way back in 2005, and HDMI has not had any hard limit on refresh frequency since then. 720p 120 Hz is in fact explicitly listed in HDMI 1.2 as a supported format (§6.3.2), although at 1080p it was still limited to ≈60 Hz by bandwidth constraints. HDMI 1.3 in 2006 alleviated these bandwidth constraints, increasing it to surpass Dual-Link DVI, and display makers have been free to implement 1080p 144 Hz over HDMI ever since then. But I have an ASUS VG248QE / BenQ XL2411Z / Acer GN246HL and it's capped at 60 Hz over HDMI! Yes; these and many other 1080p 144 Hz monitors are equipped with HDMI 1.4a inputs, yet are still limited to 60 Hz over HDMI. This is just an unfortunate limitation of those particular monitors, it is not a limitation of the HDMI standard. Other monitors, such as the ViewSonic XG2401, the Nixeus NX-VUE24A, and the AOC G2590PX are also 1080p 144 Hz monitors with HDMI 1.4a ports, and they do accept 1080p 120/144 Hz over HDMI. It's purely a matter of manufacturer's discretion whether they want to implement that capability or not. Sadly, many instead choose to implement HDMI 1.4a with reduced bandwidth, presumably for cost-saving reasons. The long and short of it is, some displays support 1080p 120+ Hz over HDMI 1.4, and some don't. It just depends on the display, so you'll need to do some research on whatever product you're considering. But if a product doesn't support the full bandwidth of HDMI 1.4a, surely it can't be HDMI 1.4a-compliant! Unfortunately it still can. Support for the full bandwidth is not a requirement for a device or control chip to be HDMI 1.4a-compliant. Very few displays (certainly during the peak years of HDMI 1.3/1.4) have specs that can even use the full bandwidth, so it wouldn't make sense to require that all devices wishing to implement any HDMI 1.4 features must use a more expensive control chip capable of the full bandwidth, when virtually none of them have any use for it. Isn't the extra bandwidth in 1.4 only used for 3D at 60 Hz per eye, not for normal 120 Hz video? No. This is something that people often repeat for some reason, that although 1080p 60 Hz uses less than half the bandwidth provided by HDMI 1.4, that extra bandwidth is apparently only allowed to be used for 3D frame packing. While it is true that 3D is one of the uses for the extra bandwidth, there is no restriction on using it for other purposes, such as standard video transmission at higher resolutions and refresh frequencies. This claim that the extra bandwidth is only allowed to be used for 3D is a bit of a head scratcher when you consider that the bandwidth increase has been there since HDMI 1.3, but the 3D format definitions (such as frame packing) weren't added until HDMI 1.4. But if you do meet anyone who insists that the extra bandwidth really is only allowed to be used for 3D, please feel free to ask them which page or section of the HDMI Specification establishes this supposed restriction, I'd be interested to find out. I've never had an answer. Wasn't support for 1080p 120 Hz only added in HDMI 1.4b (and therefore not supported in 1.4a and earlier)? No. This claim comes from people reading it on Wikipedia but not checking the citation, which was just a youtube video of some random guy saying so. Speaking as someone who has the actual HDMI 1.4/a/b Specification documents on hand, this claim of 1080p 120 Hz support being introduced in HDMI 1.4b is completely false. Nothing was introduced in HDMI 1.4b (see page 3 here), simply minor edits and clarifications to the document itself, which is why you don't generally see "HDMI 1.4b" devices, because technologically it is identical to HDMI 1.4a, just some changes to the wording in the HDMI Specification document. 1080p 120 Hz has been explicitly listed in the HDMI Specification as a supported format since HDMI 1.4 (§6.3.2), not 1.4b, but even prior to that in HDMI 1.3 or 1.3a it can be implemented as a vendor-specific format which is a perfectly valid approach. Video formats do not require "support" from the HDMI Specification to work, because the word "support" does not mean what most people think it means in this case. When the HDMI Specification "adds support" for a certain format, it doesn't mean it in the conventional sense of "adding the capability" as if it wasn't previously possible. They mean it in a more literal sense of adding supporting material to help strengthen it, by defining standardized timings for the format to help with compatibility and ease of implementation instead of leaving it purely to the vendor's discretion. This "support" isn't actually necessary to display a format though. Even if a format isn't supported by the HDMI Specification, it can still be displayed through HDMI. 2560 × 1440 for example is not listed in the HDMI Specification either, so it is just as "unsupported" by HDMI as 1080p 144 Hz is, and yet it's implemented over HDMI on hundreds of different monitors. The same can be done with 1080p 144 Hz if manufacturers choose to do so, and they have done so on several monitors as mentioned above. Another example of this usage of the term "support" is ultrawide formats; HDMI 2.0 "added support" for the 21:9 ratio, even though ultrawide resolutions were available before HDMI 2.0 even existed and were working just fine over HDMI 1.4a. "Adding support" for 21:9 just meant the HDMI 2.0 spec added material to help establish standardized formats and timings, not that 21:9 formats weren't possible in previous versions, and indeed the majority of ultrawide monitors still use HDMI 1.4a even though it "doesn't support" 21:9 ratio formats, because it doesn't need to. Just because "HDMI doesn't support X", this does not mean "HDMI doesn't allow X" or "X won't work over HDMI". Citation Needed!!! Here's the first sentence of the video section of the HDMI 1.4a Specification: HDMI Specification Version 1.4a (2010), §6.1 6.1  Overview HDMI allows any video format timing to be transmitted and displayed. To maximize interoperability between products, common DTV formats have been defined. These video format timings define the pixel and line counts and timing, synchronization pulse positions and duration, and whether the format is interlaced or progressive. HDMI also allows vendor-specific formats to be used. "Any video format timing". Am I just taking it out of context and applying it beyond its intended meaning? No. Here's the same section from HDMI 1.1: HDMI Specification Version 1.1 (2004), §6.1 6.1  Overview HDMI allows a wide variety of explicity defined video format timings to be transmitted and displayed. These video format timings define the pixel and line counts and timing, synchronization pulse positions and duration, and whether the format is interlaced or progressive. In HDMI 1.0 and 1.1, only certain pre-defined formats were allowed (listed in §6.1–6.3; all of them are 60 Hz and under, so HDMI was indirectly limited to 60 Hz by that). In 2005 with the release of HDMI 1.2, that clause was specifically changed to say what it still says today, that any format is allowed. It's quite deliberate. HDMI 1.2 was designed to make HDMI more viable for the PC space, by allowing any arbitrary resolution and refresh rate (within the bandwidth limit), as opposed to the strict adherence to only standardized home theater formats required by HDMI 1.0 and 1.1. Although it does still have a list of pre-defined formats (to maximize interoperability between products, as it says), any format which is not explicitly defined in the HDMI Specification may still be implemented as a vendor-specific format. HDMI 1.2 also expanded the list of explicitly defined formats itself to include some >60 Hz formats like 720p 120 Hz, so the claim that it or later versions of HDMI impose a flat 60 Hz limit is pure nonsense. HDMI Specification Version 1.2 (2005), §6.3.2 6.3.2  Secondary Video Format Timings 720(1440)x240p @ 59.94/60Hz 2880x480i @ 59.94/60Hz [...] 1920x1080i @ 119.88/120Hz 1280x720p @ 119.88/120Hz 720(1440)x480i @ 239.76/240Hz 720x480p @ 239.76/240Hz However, the maximum bandwidth of HDMI 1.2 was the same as 1.0 and 1.1, so at 1080p it was still limited to 60 Hz due to bandwidth constraints. In 2006, HDMI 1.3 increased the maximum bandwidth by over double, enough for up to 144 Hz at 1080p. From this point onwards display manufacturers have been free to implement 1080p 120/144 Hz as a vendor-specific format. HDMI 1.4 added 1080p 120 Hz to the list of explicitly defined formats, so it is no longer even necessary for the manufacturer to have to define their own timings for the format: HDMI Specification Version 1.4 (2009), §6.3.2 6.3.2  Secondary Video Format Timings 720(1440)x240p @ 59.94/60Hz 2880x480i @ 59.94/60Hz [...] 1920x1080p @ 119.88/120Hz 1920x1080p @ 100Hz As for 1080p 144 Hz, as before, manufacturers are still free to implement it as a vendor-specific format, and some have done so already. If a 1080p 120+ Hz display doesn't support 120+ Hz over HDMI, it's the fault of that display model, not a limitation of the HDMI standard.
Close

---

›	Data Rate / Maximum Refresh Frequency Calculator	[Link]
Data Rate: Calculate the data rate required at a certain resolution and refresh frequency  Max. Refresh Frequency: Calculate the maximum refresh frequency of every interface at a certain resolution Resolution: ✕ Frequency: Hz Color Depth: 8 bpc (24 bit/px) 10 bpc (30 bit/px) 12 bpc (36 bit/px) 16 bpc (48 bit/px) Color Format: RGB YCbCr 4∶4∶4 YCbCr 4∶2∶2 YCbCr 4∶2∶0 Compression: None DSC (6 bit/px) DSC (7 bit/px) DSC (8 bit/px) DSC (10 bit/px) DSC (12 bit/px) DSC (14 bit/px) DSC (16 bit/px) Timing Format: None CTA-861 CVT CVT-RB CVT-R2    Show calculations  Show timing formula   Set to defaults Link with these settings
Close

Edited September 13, 2024 by Glenwing
v2.6.0

[Glenwing]

Changelog:

Spoiler

Not all changes are logged, i.e. minor changes to information, wording, etc. or general maintenance.

 

v2.6.0 — 2024-09-12:

• Changed DSC compression to be specified in bits per pixel instead of as a ratio. This more closely matches the actual operation of DSC, and allows certain limits to be enforced (i.e. 3.0× ratio with 8 bpc YCbCr 4:2:0 is not actually possible, but was selectable as an option previously)
• In "maximum frequency" mode for HDMI:
  • HDMI zero-pads components to 12 bits when using YCbCr 4:2:2; this is now accounted for
  • HDMI does not support 16 bpc color depth with YCbCr 4:2:2 subsampling; results will no longer be displayed for HDMI when this combination is chosen
  • DSC is not supported with HDMI TMDS transmission; results will no longer be displayed for these rows when DSC is active
  • Blanking expansion (RC compression) is now accounted for
• In "maximum frequency" mode for DVI:
  • DVI does not support YCbCr color format; results will no longer be displayed for DVI when this color format is chosen
  • DVI zero-pads components to 16 bits when using >8 bpc color depth; this is now accounted for

 

v2.5.8 — 2023-02-20:

• Edited DVI-to-HDMI section for clarity, since apparently it wasn't clear enough to cut through the bias of a pre-conceived notion combined with the bandwagon effect, which can be surprisingly powerful when combined.

 

v2.5.7 — 2022-07-24:

• Bandwidth calculator: HDMI FRL data rates have been adjusted slightly to account for FEC overhead (from 42.67 to 41.92 Gbit/s etc.)
• Bandwidth calculator: An error message is now displayed if CTA-861 timing is selected in maximum frequency mode (instead of a table of all zeros)

 

v2.5.4 — 2021-01-28:

• Updated for the existence of DisplayPort to USB-C bi-directional adapter cables

 

v2.5.3 — 2021-01-18:

• Added adapters for DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 as well as HDMI 2.0 to DP 1.2 conversion
• Removed some outdated commentary regarding HDMI 2.1
• Night-theme friendly switch button

 

v2.5.1 — 2020-06-11:

• Updated various adapter recommendations for new products and removal of some discontinued products
• Fixed images not showing up in DVI section
• Updated DisplayPort cable recommendations for HBR3-certified cables
• Other rewrites to DisplayPort section

 

v2.5.0 — 2020-01-16:

• Updated tables and calculator for DisplayPort 2.0
• Corrected error in Thunderbolt 3 section which previously stated that TB3 could be configured in HBR3 ×8 mode to utilize the full 40 Gbit/s for video
• Updated to account for the recent existence of genuine USB-C to dual-link DVI adapters

 

v2.4.7 — 2019-03-28:

• Rewrote DVI section
• Changed Thunderbolt 3 Gen1/Gen2 notation to "Alpine Ridge" and "Titan Ridge"

 

v2.4.5 — 2019-01-02:

• Fix for spoilers where the header would get messed up when opened on Chrome, due to some random Chrome update that changed the way rotation of table cells is handled
• Added loading circle to help users know to wait for the page to load when given a link that will auto-open the correct section
• New reorganized format for DP-to-HDMI, DP-to-DVI, and DP-to-VGA sections.

 

v2.4.3 — 2018-03-26:

• Added option for CTA-861 timing parameters to the bandwidth calculator

 

v2.4.2 — 2018-03-23:

• Updated for Titan Ridge Thunderbolt 3 controllers
• Updated for DisplayPort DP8K cable certification
• Updated for HDMI 2.1 and Ultra High Speed HDMI cables
• Rewrote "Do HDMI Cables Have Versions" section

 

v2.3.8 — 2017-09-03:

• Night theme for remaining tables

 

v2.3.7 — 2017-08-24:

• Night theme for max refresh frequency tables

 

v2.3.4 — 2017-08-12:

• Rewrote HDMI 60 Hz Limit section with corrections, and moved to dedicated spoiler
• Removed main HDMI Cable Versions article from HDMI dropdown section, replaced with short summary and link to spoiler section
• Added TL;DR to HDMI Cable Versions section regarding High Speed HDMI cables and HDMI 2.0
• Fixed DVI table footnote font size
• Added additional old versions of DisplayPort and HDMI standards documents

 

v2.3.2 — 2017-08-10:

• Added downloads for the DisplayPort 1.1a, HDMI 1.3a, and DVI specification documents

 

v2.3.0 — 2017-07-22:

• Added Thunderbolt 3 and USB Type-C DisplayPort Alt Mode
• Fixed section linking (broke after minor revision 2.2.9 on 2017-07-14 which is not logged here)
• Fixed inefficiencies with bandwidth calculator (excessive recalculations causing some lag, especially on mobile devices)
• Fixed text color of links inside tables on Night Theme
• Rewrote HDMI cable versions article
• Added capability tables to the main article for each interface
• Redone table of all passive adapter combinations in "Active vs Passive Adapters" section
• Changed product links to use Linus affiliate code, moved similar products onto the same line, and changed all links to open in a new tab

 

v2.2.0 — 2017-03-20:

• Better spoilers
• Added permalinks for every section, to allow linking to a specific part of the guide
• Improved index style, and added index for "Passive vs. Active Adapters" section
• Added DSC compression options to the bandwidth calculator
• Added paragraph indents everywhere for better readability

 

v2.1.2 — 2017-03-09:

• Rewrote sections clarifying HDMI cable versions and added dedicated spoiler for this information

 

v2.1.1 — 2017-03-01:

• Added clickable index for "Connecting to 120+ Hz Displays" section for easier navigation

 

v2.1.0 — 2017-02-22:

• Added horizontal scrolling for tables and interfaces which overflow beyond the viewport, for better usability on mobile devices

 

v2.0.2 — 2017-02-12:

• Added information regarding HDMI 2.1

 

v2.0.0 — 2017-01-26:

• Initial post

 

(This image is here so that the forum will use it as the preview image for the thread when pasting links)

 

 

[TrigrH]

This is fantastic.

[somerandomguy12]

very useful guide!

[Charix]

Wow! How did you do that cool dropdown thing?

[Glenwing]

5 minutes ago, MTMaster said:

Wow! How did you do that cool dropdown thing?

JavaScript

[Charix]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

JavaScript

I did not realize you could do JavaScript here in this forum. But it's extremely useful because I just needed to see DisplayPort to VGA and it worked perfectly. Much better than the old guide.

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, MTMaster said:

I did not realize you could do JavaScript here in this forum. But it's extremely useful because I just needed to see DisplayPort to VGA and it worked perfectly. Much better than the old guide.

Only staff can  Glad to hear it's an improvement though

[Charix]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

Only staff can

Oh, that makes sense. Well, thanks for the great guide!

[JoostinOnline]

THANK YOU!!! I have been so f*cking confused.  I must have spent an hour researching this, and all I got was more questions because of the conflicting answers.

[Glenwing]

Updated with some improvements that should make it more usable on mobile and low resolution displays.

[Edward.s]

correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldn't hdmi 1.3,1.4 capable of 4k at 36hz?

since 1920*1080*144 = 3840*2160*36?

 

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, Edward.s said:

correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldn't hdmi 1.3,1.4 capable of 4k at 36hz?

since 1920*1080*144 = 3840*2160*36?

 

Footnotes

[Edward.s]

27 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Footnotes

ah my bad. i need to learn to read the whole thing first 

[Razzee]

This guide is very useful.

 

It just does not clarifies something about active adapters. I have a HDMI to VGA adapter to use a 1600x900 monitor that has only VGA. Sometimes the adapter itself was recognized by Windows as being a monitor of 1024x768 resolution, making all screens flash (losing and recovering signal). When the monitor model was detected (B2030N) it worked for a day or so. Have you seen this? It is a problem of the converter or HDMI to VGA is not intended to work?

 

[Glenwing]

8 hours ago, Razzee said:

This guide is very useful.

 

It just does not clarifies something about active adapters. I have a HDMI to VGA adapter to use a 1600x900 monitor that has only VGA. Sometimes the adapter itself was recognized by Windows as being a monitor of 1024x768 resolution, making all screens flash (losing and recovering signal). When the monitor model was detected (B2030N) it worked for a day or so. Have you seen this? It is a problem of the converter or HDMI to VGA is not intended to work?

 

It's not unusual for active adapters in general to have problems like this.

[sazrocks]

There is no mention of hdmi 2.1 in the 120+ section under what standards can run 4K at 120+. Is this intentional since there aren't actually any hdmi 2.1 devices yet?

 

Also, playing with the calculator at the bottom is fun.

Spoiler

 

[Glenwing]

14 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

There is no mention of hdmi 2.1 in the 120+ section under what standards can run 4K at 120+. Is this intentional since there aren't actually any hdmi 2.1 devices yet?

 

Also, playing with the calculator at the bottom is fun.

That wasn't something I've thought about, thanks for pointing it out. Since that section is more intended for people looking for answers to a practical situation I think I'll leave it off for now, I don't really want it to be bogged with information that doesn't apply to the real world. I may add it when things are further along, right now the HDMI 2.1 specification hasn't even been released to the industry yet.

 

And glad you're having fun with it  

[Razzee]

Quote

Active Adapters (Dual-Link DVI)

A more complex active adapter is required to convert DisplayPort to a full Dual-Link DVI connection. [...]
 

 

I noticed that GTX 1080 Ti does not have DVI-D, but a DisplayPort to DVI-D Dual Link (supporting 1440p 144Hz) instead, and it has no USB cable!

 

I found one for less than the others you posted. https://www.amazon.com/VisionTek-DisplayPort-DVI-D-Active-Adapter/dp/B00DYRQXMK

 

The seller says it is Dual Link, but in the question the seller responds that supports only up to 60Hz. The DisplayPort end of the cable has a version like 1.1 or the seller is lying (and the cable actually is Single Link)? What version the DisplayPort end of the cable needs to be?

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Razzee said:

 

I noticed that GTX 1080 Ti does not have DVI-D, but a DisplayPort to DVI-D Dual Link (supporting 1440p 144Hz) instead, and it has no USB cable!

 

I found one for less than the others you posted. https://www.amazon.com/VisionTek-DisplayPort-DVI-D-Active-Adapter/dp/B00DYRQXMK

 

The seller says it is Dual Link, but in the question the seller responds that supports only up to 60Hz. The DisplayPort end of the cable has a version like 1.1 or the seller is lying (and the cable actually is Single Link)? What version the DisplayPort end of the cable needs to be?

Even a true Dual-Link DVI connection only provides about half the bandwidth needed for 1440p 144 Hz. I doubt that the adapter that comes with the 1080 Ti is an active adapter or supports a true Dual-Link DVI connection, but we'll see.

 

I have seen the VisionTek adapter, but given the price (similar to DP to SL-DVI active adapters) and numerous reviews saying it doesn't work on various monitors which are known to only work when used with DL-DVI, I chose not to recommend it. It's possible the sales rep that responded to the questions was mistaken.

 

Any version of DisplayPort can be converted to Dual-Link DVI, as DisplayPort 1.1 (the earliest available version) has more bandwidth than DL-DVI.

[Razzee]

1 hour ago, Glenwing said:

Even a true Dual-Link DVI connection only provides about half the bandwidth needed for 1440p 144 Hz. I doubt that the adapter that comes with the 1080 Ti is an active adapter or supports a true Dual-Link DVI connection, but we'll see.

 

I have seen the VisionTek adapter, but given the price (similar to DP to SL-DVI active adapters) and numerous reviews saying it doesn't work on various monitors which are known to only work when used with DL-DVI, I chose not to recommend it. It's possible the sales rep that responded to the questions was mistaken.

 

Any version of DisplayPort can be converted to Dual-Link DVI, as DisplayPort 1.1 (the earliest available version) has more bandwidth than DL-DVI.

 

*I sent video link to you by message*

 

He shows the adapter at 5:35.

 

The guy on the left is an employee of NVIDIA and said it supports QuadHD 144Hz. 

 

I found it interesting because different from the other (expensive) cables, this one does not have USB to provide power.

 

I am not buying a GTX 1080 Ti, but not having support to 144Hz would really be a problem for me since my monitor (Philips 242G5DJEB) has only DVI-D.

[Maxinfamily]

Wow, thank you very much for this exhaustive guide. To be honest, I didnt know the actual difference between DP and HDMI (theres none but the data rate), I also didnt know the source ports can output different kinds of signal regarless the kind of the port (DP can output HDMI data) which is great and makes passive adapters so simple...

 

Thank you very much again! Great contribution.

 

Edit: which leads me to think... DP for gaming at 4k 60hz or 2.5/2k at 144hz is just overkill, isnt It? Or is the DP cable cheaper than the HDMI 2.0/2.1 cables?

[Glenwing]

18 minutes ago, Maxinfamily said:

Wow, thank you very much for this exhaustive guide. To be honest, I didnt know the actual difference between DP and HDMI (theres none but the data rate), I also didnt know the source ports can output different kinds of signal regarless the kind of the port (DP can output HDMI data) which is great and makes passive adapters so simple...

 

Thank you very much again! Great contribution.

 

Edit: which leads me to think... DP for gaming at 4k 60hz or 2.5/2k at 144hz is just overkill, isnt It? Or is the DP cable cheaper than the HDMI 2.0/2.1 cables?

Most of those monitors don't have HDMI 2.0, only HDMI 1.4 sadly

[Maxinfamily]

1 minute ago, Glenwing said:

Most of those monitors don't have HDMI 2.0, only HDMI 1.4 sadly

Oh I see, which sucks for 4k gaming or +100hz 2.5k. Thanks!

[Xiauj]

On 1/27/2017 at 6:38 AM, Glenwing said:

-snip-

Hey @Glenwing, any information/notes regarding mHDMI ..?

I see miniDP is listed but was wondering if mHDMI was that relevant anymore

Having a slight issue (..or two ) currently with my mHDMI port on my GPU and am struggling to find a temporary solution and was wondering if there was anything I didn't know about, lol

 

-Xiauj