Why do monitors that are full HD not have an HDMI port on them?

donthaveacow

Posts: 15   +0
I'm sure the question in the title is very noob, but I just assumed that full HD monitors would connect to the graphics card via a HDMI cable?

Thanks in advance!
 
Not really necessary, DVI carries the same video signal as HDMI ... just no audio. You can use a DVI to HDMI cable for your connection.
 
They can connect by displayport, DVI or HDMI as far as I am aware.

An advantage of HDMI is the ability to also carry audio, which on a PC is often not needed, as most people have separate speakers.

That said, I don't actually recall ever seeing a HD display without HDMI connectors.
 
Full HD 1920x1080 (or the computer only 1920x1200) resolutions have been around for sometime. It is only Blu-ray and HD-DVD that came up with the "HD" tag for this resolution, which has then been applied to Televisions to inform consumers they can display Full HD (1080P or 1920x1080 progressive).

Multiple different connections can support these resolutions, component, DVI, HDMI etc. It is not a requirement for a computer monitor to have an HDMI to be able to display "HD" resolutions. But to display "HD" playback from Blu-ray drive it requires an HDCP compliant HDMI, Displayport or DVI connection. Anything that has HDCP. HDCP is a copy protection system. Basically require HDCP playback device and HDCP display device for this.
 
I don't see the value of using the little tinny (not tiny but tin as in Sn) speakers that monitors come with when viewing HD content. Just about any decent separate speakers would be better. So if an HD monitor came without an HDMI input, no problem.
 
I believe the issue is a licensing fee. There is none for display port, but ya gotta pay for HDMI connectivity. As near as I can tell, reference VGA chipsets, are enabled for both, (+DVI +VGA analog), and it's up tho the graphics card makere to decide which set of connections they're going to use.

1080p (16:9) (IMHO) sucks for computer anyway. I say stick with the 16:10 formats, preferably 1920 X 1200.
 
I believe the issue is a licensing fee. There is none for display port, but ya gotta pay for HDMI connectivity. As near as I can tell, reference VGA chipsets, are enabled for both, (+DVI +VGA analog), and it's up tho the graphics card makere to decide which set of connections they're going to use.

1080p (16:9) (IMHO) sucks for computer anyway. I say stick with the 16:10 formats, preferably 1920 X 1200.

umm yeah, what was the reason for going from the 16:10 to the 16:9 anyway?
 
umm yeah, what was the reason for going from the 16:10 to the 16:9 anyway?
Too many people, with way too much "technical ability", give too many bad reviews to 16:10 monitors, because of the "black bars" that are present when viewing 16:9 material on these monitors.

Give the pubic what it wants, cut the excess screen off, and lo and behold, no more black bars, I think was at least part of the motivation.

Beyond that, users nowadays exhibit the sophistication to be able to adapt a $1000.00 computer, into a $200.00 LCD TV. Gotta give a lotta credit to human inbreeding for that breakthrough.

Since "progress" is trying to combine TV, Blu-Ray, and streaming internet video, it does follow, (in a perverse sort of logic), that there is an ongoing attempt to force standardization between them. 16:9 still sucks, for much of anything beyond scripted TV reruns, and them only if you missed them on your real TV in the first place!

And Leeky can add my Dell 23" & HP 24" IPS monitors, to that list of panels that don't have HDMI, but DO have display port.

A side note here is; despite the fact that video cards generally don't, (if ever?), have all 4 output types, my Gigabyte IGP H-55 board does!
 
Back