• ABCDE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    That doesn’t even seem so unreasonable. Is that the limit though? My cable puts a gigabyte a second down it so I wouldn’t imagine that would hit the limit.

    • GeniusIsme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is trivial arithmetic: 4.52403840*2160 ≈ 9 GB/ s. Not even close. Even worse, that cable will struggle to get ordinary 60hz 4k delivered.

      • pirat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        4.5 × 240 × 3840 × 2160 ≈ 9 GB/s

        It seems markdown formatting ruined your numbers because of the asterisks. Whatever is written between two of those turns italic, so they’re not ideal for multiplication symbols here on Lemmy (or any other place that implements markdown formatting).

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think the maths got a bit funky there. I don’t think a cable capable of such speeds would struggled to do 60Hz at 4K, it surely doesn’t need close to a gigabyte a second?

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      USB-C with Thunderbolt currently had a limit of 40Gbit/sec. Wikipedia has a table of what DisplayPort can do at that bandwidth:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

      See the section “Resolution and refresh frequency limits”. The table there shows it’d be able to do 4k/144hz/10bpp just fine, but can’t keep above 60hz for 8k.

      Its an uncompressed video signal, and that takes a lot of bandwidth. Though there is a simple lossless compression mode.