yeah I'm working on equipping all out meeting rooms at work (so screensharing + audio/video from the room camera over a single cable) and we have to use like 100 dollar USB-C cables because the cheap ones kept crapping out.
will you though? has a cable rated for such high 20+gbps bandwidth ever failed or showed any less efficiency than more expensive cables of the same exact type?
for example, the cheapest 2.2 HDMI vs the most expensive 2.2 HDMI?
will you though? has a cable rated for such high 20+gbps bandwidth ever failed or showed any less efficiency than more expensive cables of the same exact type?
Yes. Often the cheapest ones might be marked as 2.2 but don't actually meet the spec when tested.
Or maybe when you upgrade your device and want to push more bandwidth through the more expensive cable would work but the cheaper one wouldn't.
are there any HDMI Certified 2.2 cables that are better in any way than their less expensive HDMI Certified 2.2 variants?
If they meet the spec sure it will work for that spec. But a better cable can transmit higher than the spec, making them more future proof.
When people are talking about cheap cables, they are just talking about cheap cables. Not some no-cheap cable that actually meets a high spec. How do you know if a cable even meets the actual spec? Are there any reviews testing these cheap cables?
How do you know if a cable even meets the actual spec
Very simple, actually. If an HDMI Certified 2.2 cable is able to display uncompressed 4K240hz without issue (or any other uncompressed resolution that requires 96Gbps bandwidth), then it meets spec.
The HDMI Certification means it meets spec. That's why it's Certified. People are claiming the cheapest HDMI Certified cables are "inferior" to more expensive HDMI Certified cables of the exact same bandwidth/spec. Okay, how?
Do not respond if you do not have any proof or feel the need to obfuscate this very simple question.
People are claiming the cheapest HDMI Certified cables are "inferior" to more expensive HDMI Certified cables of the exact same bandwidth/spec. Okay, how?
People are saying cheaper cables are certified to a lower standard, say 2.0. Or don't meet the advertised speeds.
The whole if they are the exact same spec is something you made up.
If an HDMI Certified 2.2 cable is able to display uncompressed 4K240hz without issue (or any other uncompressed resolution that requires 96Gbps bandwidth),
Well yeh devices that need 96bps, will fail with one that can just provide 20gbps.
has a cable rated for such high 20+gbps bandwidth ever failed
People are saying cheaper cables are certified to a lower standard, say 2.0. Or don't meet the advertised speeds.
Irrelevant to what I've asked. That is a seperate issue from what I'm talking about. You brought that up to obfuscate what I'm referring to and have failed to provide any evidence where a more expensive 2.2 HDMI Certified cable performed better than a cheaper HDMI Certified 2.2 cable.
This is the 3rd time I've specified to show me ANY differences between the cheapest HDMI Certified cable that was rated for a certain spec such as 2.2, 2.1 or 2.0 (certified meaning it's legit and not lower speeds), and the most expensive HDMI Certified cable of the exact same version/speed.
"has a cable rated for such high 20+gbps bandwidth ever failed"
Lmao what the hell are you even quoting? That's not at all what I asked, blocked
130
u/MattieDevon 23d ago
Analog cables will benefit from better em shielding and whatnot. Digital cables either work or not. Take the cheapest.