Thursday, June 18th 2015

AMD "Fiji" Silicon Lacks HDMI 2.0 Support

by
btarunr
 Discuss (139 Comments)
It turns out that AMD's new "Fiji" silicon lacks HDMI 2.0 support, after all. Commenting on OCUK Forums, an AMD representative confirmed that the chip lacks support for the connector standard, implying that it's limited to HDMI 1.4a. HDMI 2.0 offers sufficient bandwidth for 4K Ultra HD resolution at 60 Hz. While the chip's other connectivity option, DisplayPort 1.2a supports 4K at 60 Hz - as do every 4K Ultra HD monitor ever launched - the lack of HDMI 2.0 support hurts the chip's living room ambitions, particularly with products such as the Radeon R9 Nano, which AMD CEO Lisa Su, stated that is being designed for the living room. You wouldn't need a GPU this powerful for 1080p TVs (a GTX 960 or R9 270X ITX card will do just fine), and if it's being designed for 4K UHD TVs, then its HDMI interface will cap visuals at a console-rivaling 30 Hz.
Source: OCUK Forums

Related News

Add your own comment

139 Comments on AMD "Fiji" Silicon Lacks HDMI 2.0 Support

#51
Uplink10
r.h.pI personally don't use a TV for gaming
That is the way to go, who the hell buys a TV for gaming because:
-you do not even know the max frequency of the input signal because they are always advertising falsely and saying it has 400 Hz, 200 Hz, 600 Hz and I do not care how many times their LEDs blink and others false advertising methods

Who even needs a TV Tuner nowadays, put mini PC behind it (monitor) and enjoy the best content you can get from NAS in the house, Internet, Netflix...
Posted on Reply
#52
xfia
FluffmeisterThese comment sections always deliver.

Hehe.
well we all gotta learn and engineers, customer support get stuff wrong too sometimes. does not really help with so much misleading information and advertising flying around.

really does not help when a mod.. namely @Mussels wants a human experiment instead of making a list of questions and diagnostic tools for peoples issues.

i wonder if its that he didnt see the recent through the wormhole that explained non critical thinking humans use especially with no incentive or that he did see it and wanted to screw with people.
Posted on Reply
#53
mroofie
Well guess what one day im going to get db xenoverse then connect my new pc to the tv (HDMI 2.0 :pimp:) and then this happens

:D

:clap:

:peace:

:lovetpu:

(ps just trolling / joking)
RejZoRSaying DP is a future when not a single TV supports it is a bit blunt statement. I don't think DP will ever be supported in LCD TV's. It hasn't been so far, why would it be in the future? No device for the living room even has DP...
Well its 30 fps for most then :/
Still can't understand Amd's decision.
AssimilatorI can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been inside a , before. Mind you, I've also never misspelled words like a retard, so there's that.



Apparently reading isn't your strong point, allow me to assist:
Wait you are in South africa ???
Posted on Reply
#54
semantics
hdcp support is really the concern of this.
Posted on Reply
#55
Bytales
Allthough its a bad thing it doesnt have HDMI 2.0, since the newest 4k TVs have HDMI, in the end its pointless because Display Port is the Future
Posted on Reply
#56
HumanSmoke
r.h.pI have a 28" 4k Monitor running DP from a R9 290x for Gaming, perfect combo in my opinion.
4K gaming with a 290X...a perfect combo?

Posted on Reply
#57
Assimilator
john_Nvidia fanboys where in a comma yesterday. They show signs of life again today, thanks to the lack of a connector, because efficiency and performance is secondary anyway, to a connector.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been inside a , before. Mind you, I've also never misspelled words like a retard, so there's that.
ZoneDymoBecause after spending 550 dollars on a video card you are going to cry about 12 dollars worth of adapter cable.... Im guessing you run your gpu with a Pentium 4 and 1gb of ram to save cost right? because after spending 550 dollars on a gpu who would want to have to spend more money on other parts....
Apparently reading isn't your strong point, allow me to assist:
prazeStop. Neither of these cables support 4K at 60Hz, you're gonna make someone waste time and money. Just look at the reviews.

Claiming "compatibility" with a backwards compatible port like HDMI 2.0 is misleading in both of these products. It's like saying a PS3 is "HDMI 2.0 compatible" just because it will display a 1080p image on your new 4K TV.

A cable actually capible of this feat would likely cost $100+ and require external power all while introducing lag.
Posted on Reply
#58
xfia
Uplink10Facts:
-you cannot play a decent video game (not those crappy indie games) at 4K resolution and at 60 FPS
-if you need 4K resolution for viewing and editing text or images because 1080p does not look smooth enough, 30 Hz is enough

Edit: You will not get a decent minimal 30 FPS when playing at 4K
what maxed out with shoty gameworks on? your just going by benchmarks that they use unrealistic settings for like 4x msaa at 4k.. its laughable is some regard but not really your fault.
Posted on Reply
#59
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
r.h.pI personally don't use a TV for gaming , its for watching the News or DVDS to relax lol. I have a 28" 4k Monitor running DP from a R9 290x for Gaming, perfect combo in my opinion. This new AMD Fury product looks awesome , reminds me of around year 2000 when AMD Athlon WAS kicking Intel P4 , now it is back to kick Nvidia ..... I am so proud lol :D
Can I ask..... proud of what? Proud of the fact that it does not come with a level of HDMI technology that it's competitors do have or proud because you think it will just give better performance than it's main competitors?
Posted on Reply
#60
Rowsol
jigar2speedAnd the Nvidia fanboys go wild.
What a useless post. Please, go away.

I voted for "yes" in the vote. I don't personally have a 4k anything, but I don't see why they would omit that.
Posted on Reply
#61
Basard
So, do modern TVs not have display ports on them? I dunno, haven't owned a TV in almost a decade now... just asking....
Posted on Reply
#62
xfia
Tatty_OneCan I ask..... proud of what? Proud of the fact that it does not come with a level of HDMI technology that it's competitors do have or proud because you think it will just give better performance than it's main competitors?
@r.h.p dont do it.. it might just be more of the human experiment i already posted on technet. maybe i will get to see what the news thinks if i shoot them a email.
Posted on Reply
#63
mroofie
xfia@r.h.p dont do it.. it might just be more of the human experiment i already posted on technet. maybe i will get to see what the news thinks if i shoot them a email.
what human experiment ??
WTF are you talking about o_Oo_Oo_O
Posted on Reply
#65
Ferrum Master
BasardSo, do modern TVs not have display ports on them? I dunno, haven't owned a TV in almost a decade now... just asking....
There are but not much yet... Philips and Panasonic have some... haven't seen more... I don't have any interest in TV's as such, treat them as crap... I have a projector on 135inch screen... size does matter.
Posted on Reply
#66
Lou007
But didn't AMD as part of VESA adopt DP to phase out VGA? It was never intended to be used on Televisions but more as a means of a new connector for lcd monitors slowly replacing the analogue input, and at the same time able to carry the audio signal. The intent was to make it widely available and free for monitor makers to imstall on all new hardware, unlike HDMI which has a charge attatched for any company intending to adopt it.
Posted on Reply
#67
john_
AssimilatorI can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been inside a , before. Mind you, I've also never misspelled words like a retard, so there's that.
I can write it in Greek if you prefer. No misspelling there. By the way. Who is the retard here? The person who makes a mistake writing in another language, or the person that comments about that, like you did? Anyway, I can understand you being upset. Try to relax.
Posted on Reply
#68
ZoneDymo
AssimilatorI can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been inside a , before. Mind you, I've also never misspelled words like a retard, so there's that.



Apparently reading isn't your strong point, allow me to assist:
So reading is not my strong point...so you copy paste someone's text again....
And you think that would assist a person who you claim is not too great at reading....
Posted on Reply
#69
the54thvoid
Intoxicated Moderator
Such an ill tempered thread. How about people stop being dicks and stick to the topic.
Posted on Reply
#70
r.h.p
HumanSmoke4K gaming with a 290X...a perfect combo?

Um... yeah I get what u mean HumanSmoke , my wording was a bit fuzzy :banghead: ..... perfect combo was suppose to mean my setup with the DP cable
runs BFH at 2560x1440 @ 60hz on ultra 50 fps. Its not true 4K , but I am presuming that my New AMD Radeon R9 Fury X will change that. So who needs the HDMI port ??
Posted on Reply
#71
mister2
This news saddens me. I was hoping I could finally offload the 980 in my HTPC (RVZ-01) for something faster that didn't have driver issues. I game on my couch with full surround sound and a 65" 4K TV.

It's a big oversight by AMD. The cost of adding the support is ridiculously small for the benefit of expanding your audience. Sigh...
Posted on Reply
#72
r.h.p
Tatty_OneCan I ask..... proud of what? Proud of the fact that it does not come with a level of HDMI technology that it's competitors do have or proud because you think it will just give better performance than it's main competitors?
I am proud that AMD have come back with a product that can Kick Nvidia performance wise ...... anyway ova it now lol
Posted on Reply
#73
xfia
r.h.pI am proud that AMD have come back with a product that can Kick Nvidia performance wise ...... anyway ova it now lol
amd sets industry open standards and nvidia tries to own them
Posted on Reply
#74
Whilhelm
Well so much for my interest in Fiji, I was looking forward to ditching my GTX 980 SLI setup in favor of a single 4k capable card from team red.

This is such a small thing to overlook that completely prevents me from being able to buy this card. I have a 4k 40" TV as my main monitor that uses HDMI 2.0 and having to buy a different TV because AMD decided to ignore HDMI 2.0 is crazy.

As much as Display port is a better solution its going to be years before HDMI is displaced as a TV connection standard. So, for AMD to decide to not include it as a 4k connectivity option is a mistake.
Posted on Reply
#75
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
WhilhelmWell so much for my interest in Fiji, I was looking forward to ditching my GTX 980 SLI setup in favor of a single 4k capable card from team red.

This is such a small thing to overlook that completely prevents me from being able to buy this card. I have a 4k 40" TV as my main monitor that uses HDMI 2.0 and having to buy a different TV because AMD decided to ignore HDMI 2.0 is crazy.

As much as Display port is a better solution its going to be years before HDMI is displaced as a TV connection standard. So, for AMD to decide to not include it as a 4k connectivity option is a mistake.
Thank you, that answers the question at the end of R.H.P's post # 71, all my point is/was is just because this limitation does not hinder some users AMD is still in my opinion missing a trick and an opportunity with all those 4K TV owners who don't want to spend another bunch of cash on a monitor, in my case it's more about commiserating with 4K TV owners than criticising AMD but both go hand in hand to a degree.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 9th, 2024 14:55 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts