4K: Powering HDMI 2.0 devices with Mini DP 1.2 GPU?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Darthmullet

Darthmullet

Honorable
Nov 15, 2013
38
0
10,540
I do not know of a graphics card that has HDMI 2.0 as of yet. Mine does have Mini Displayport 1.2, which can handle 4k @ 60 hz.

Does anyone know if connecting a next-gen HDMI 2.0 4k TV to the dp 1.2 will allow the HDMI 2.0 to run at its full speed for 4k at 60 hz? I've looked around and can't find an answer. Would be a shame to get a 4k television that can't run properly off my beefy graphics card.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
R9 295x2. The question isn't really "will it be okay" -- its, will adapting the mDP 1.2 make the HDMI 2.0 run at less than its rated speed. Yeah, I can watch videos at 30 fps, but I won't want to be playing games at that fps, and it wipes out the purpose of waiting until an HDMI 2.0 standard came out to get 60 hz.

I thought I was posting this in the Displays board, but it ended up in Systems. Not sure why.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


HDMI 2.0 is still pretty new, and I've also tried to look for HDMI 2.0 devices and have had no luck.

I'd chat with customer service about that 4k TV and ask if it has the 2.0 version of HDMI.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well, I'm mostly planning at this point. I haven't upgraded my GPU to the 295x2 yet, and do not have a 4k television yet. I am eyeing the TCL UH9500 series smart TVs that are going to be released Q4 of this year, and will support HDMI 2.0.

It would be a very sad day to invest in a $1500 graphics card that can't send a 60 hz signal to my television. I suppose this will be a common issue come television-release season in Q4 and will probably get answered. I had intended to upgrade my card sooner rather than later however - well before pulling the trigger on the television.




Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


hmmm, do 4k TVs still do "the old way" of doing 60hz by using twin HDMI cables? If so and if the 4k tv just has hdmi 1.4 (or whatever version that is just below 2.0) then you could get a mini DP to HDMI and a standard hdmi cable so you could do 60hz 4k.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


As far as I know, no TVs do things MST style. Previous 4K televisions were all HDMI 1.4, 4k @ 30hz / 1080p @ 120 hz - you couldn't jury rig them into 4k @ 60 to my knowledge the way the divided monitors did.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hey,

1) Gaming at 1080p on a 4K screen is still likely the best way to go anyway. Most games don't look much better above 1920x1080.

2) 4K in general:
The MAIN PROBLEM with 4K in general for HDTV's that if you are sitting close enough to tell the difference between normal 1080p HD and actual 4K content then any video that isn't exceptional quality looks even worse.

3) Gaming at 4K:
At 4K you get roughly a THIRD of the frame rate of 1080p (i.e. 20FPS instead of 60FPS at same settings). So unless you can output 180FPS+ currently (VSYNC OFF) for a game on the Ultra settings at 1920x1080 it makes absolutely no sense to attempt 4K gaming. Because if you can't you'd either game at a LOWER frame rate or have to turn down quality settings which defeats the purpose of a 4K gaming (a "better" visual experience).

Cheers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The 295x2 can put a steady 60 fs at max 4k settings without AA [which isnt needed].

I agree games don't look exceedingly better at higher resolutions for games that were developed with textures intended for 1080p screens, but the pixel density does help considerably for larger screens e.g. a 55" television compared to a 27" monitor. I can notice differences between 1080p and 1440p on my 27" monitor, which I expect to be multiplied on a 4k screen. Also, I'm not sure I buy that viewing distance wouldn't allow detection of those differences either -- or that non native content would look substantially worse. A 55" 4k television (without upsampling which most have) running 1080p content should look no worse than a 55" 1080p content with the same aspect ratio.

In my case, it would be a 4k 55" tv from ~6 feet viewing distance compared to my desk setup of 27" 1440p from ~2-3 feet. The increased resolution to go with the larger screen should mean that even not changing the viewing distance would still maintain equal clarity at 3 feet distance due to increased pixel density.

In any case, thanks for your outlook on the 4k subject, but that isn't really the purpose of this thread / question -- which is about the technical ability of HDMI 2.0 and how that is impacted by a Displayport 1.2 source.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So, I have gathered that theoretically, a Mini Displayport to HDMI 1.4 or greater adapter cable should work. Cable wise, there is no difference between mDP 1.1 and 1.2, and HDMI 1.4 and 2.0 -- the differences are all in the sockets / interface hardware on either end of the cable.

Because of this, a 300 / 330 Mhz HDMI 1.4 adapter will not work for the new 600 Mhz HDMI 2.0 (the adapters that have a male mDP plug and a female HDMI socket) - However, a pure cable at HDMI 1.4 standard with no female adapter mechanism should be able to carry a 600 mhz 4k @ 60 hz signal if the output is mDP 1.2 and the input is HDMI 2.0. Sadly, I have searched high and low and cannot find such a cable.

The meaning of the above is that an HDMI 1.4 cable would work, we don't need a 2.0 -- just a 2.0 if it is an adapter. However, all cables that I can find at mDP 1.1 [irrelevant] to HDMI 1.3b [6.75 Gbps max] and thus don't work. For some reason, none of these were made with the HDMI 1.4 standard, and it was transitioned to adapter plugs instead of adapter cables.

Still looking for a solution. I really want to buy a new graphics card, but with mDP and no HDMI 2.0 I can't invest in one until I know I can get signal to an HDMI 2.0 tv.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
From the logic above, I am thinking this product might work. The HDMI 1.4 cable itself is not bandwidth limited, it can support HDMI 2.0 -- its the interface on the ends that was the problem. This is why a female HDMI adapter (1.4} can't send a 60 hz signal at 4k. I direct adapter cable, with mDP on one end and HDMI 1.4 on the other should work.

I finally found this

http://www.amazon.com/Displayport-Supports-HDMI-Enabled-Devices-Compatible/dp/B00E964YGC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1409420305&sr=8-2&keywords=mini+displayport+to+hdmi+2.0

Belkin also offers a female adapter, which many have reported doesn't work, presumably for the reasons above. I've decided to go ahead and pull the trigger on the R9 295x2. I won't be getting a 4k television until the Vizio P-Series or the next gen TCLs are released, but when they are I will update this with whether or not it works.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


After speaking with AMD, the fault with adapter cables is not the cables themselves. The 295 x2 detects what input the signal is being sent to, and alters its output to match. It has no HDMI 2.0 support in its firmware, so it detects the HDMI 2.0 and the best it can do is send HDMI 1.4a. Hopefully this will be fixed with a drivers update.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Please update this thread if you find a solution. I bought the exact same adapter and connected through the cable that came with my 55UB8500 that carries 4K@60 into the HDMI 3 slot from my GTX 980 rig just fine. However despite forced display detection , I only see a resolution of 3840x2160 @ 30 fps possible in amd catalyst control center. Funny I went down the same route you did :) but you are right, unless AMD writes drivers for the same, it won't be possible. I keep reading that DP 1.2 is theoretically capable of 4k @ 60. Hopefully something comes of it. Good luck to us all :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yeah, it's more than theoretically possible, the 295x2 can run a displayport 4k display at 60 hz, because mDP can convert to DP easily.

I have up and sold my 295x2 while itsit's value is highest and bought sli 980s which have dp and hdmi 2.0

I couldn't run the risk of AMD never giving 2.0 support for old cards and instead focusing on 390x.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NVIDIA GTX 980 and 970 are the only ones I found that supports HDMI 2.0 : http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980/specifications

Too bad I just bought R9 290X few months ago and buying GTX 980 wouldn't exactly be a worthy upgrade. Right now, I'm just waiting until Display Port > HDMI converter that supports 60hz gets released. 30fps gaming isn't so bad with the TruMotion feature on my LG UHD TV anyway even though 60hz would definitely be great.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, if you only have displayport, then get the AX800. I was pretty much forced to get it because my 295x2s only has mini displayport, so $2500 for that little port :) But it really is the best UHD TV I have ever seen, pretty much a LED / Plasma hybrid, I can't wait until the AX900 is out and experience beyond plasma on 4k, but it'll probably start at $7,500 for the 65 inch version. Or you can get the gtx 970 or 980 since they have HDMI 2.0, they're pretty good too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FYI:
I have quad fire AMD 295X2 cards, i7 4930k, 133V @ 12V+, RIVBE, all cooled with 24V pushing 10.8 g/m and a max of no more than 41c.
I bought (3) 55" Sony 4K TVs, that support 4K at 120Hz, and have them connected in eyefinity. Let me tell you, because I have tried it and experienced. My rig does not support 4K @ 60Hz. The maximum I can drive is 30Hz, and I have had nothing but trouble even with that. I have tried every new game out that is supposed to be optimized for eyefinity, crossfire and Mantle, and have not been able to get one of them running without tears, freezes, shutdowns you name it. It has been a complete mess. One error after another. I mean, I cannot count how many different errors I reported, how many adjustments I made, on and on for the last 2 weeks. I can run 5780X1080 60Hz all day long, and rank in the 99% on 3D Mark, but 4K is impossible.
Running 4K the way everyone on this thread is trying is not possible right now. I have the hardware and screens to play with because I am lucky, but if you are looking to go this route, don’t waste your money or your time. You may have better luck with miniDP to DP or miniDP, but there are no 55” screens like this for 2,000$ that I am aware of, I see only HDMI.

Hope this helps. Nothing but a pain in the arse.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The lg ub85000 49" in hdmi 3 with uhd deep color enabled on the tv supports 60hz 10bit 4k gaming. This paired with 2 gtx 980's will give you close to 60fps in 4k. I have it all set up and everything works great. Also with the 295x2 you can get 4k at 60hz with a mini-displayport to display port adaptor 1.2. Here is a link to a cheap cable made by accell: http://www.amazon.com/Accell-B143B-007J-UltraAV-Display...

Hope this helps guys! Any questions im always available!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've been reading up on the whole hdmi 2.0 thing and from what i understand it seems that the cables are not changing at all. Doesn't this mean that a normal DP 1.2 to hdmi (male 2 male) cable should be able to deliver the bandwith necesary? or am i being a complete noob by thinking this. Thanks for any help!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is anyone currently gaming on a 4K display using 1080P? I've been looking at a couple 40-42" models to replace my 27" monitor.

Obviously this is not as good as 4K on 4K but if the monitor does proper line doubling it should look better than a 1080p monitor, No?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom