chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I know they send digital video signals at the moment but isn't it still binary 1's and 0's? HDMI throughput data: http://knowledge.sonicelectronix.com/home-electronics/televisions/hdmi-speed-and-bandwidth/ would it be viable for data storage devices, be they, HDD's or SSD's? I was just thinking and thought they are small ports but the ability in theory to put more ports on motherboards could even allow for multi drive laptops and massive storage possibilties for desktops. would this even work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+InsaneNutter MVC Posted April 6, 2015 MVC Share Posted April 6, 2015 I guess it would be in theory, however what your thinking of has basically been done with USB Type-C. Nick H. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 It seems the throughput possibilities of USB C vs HDMI is much different in terms of speed. I was thinking based on the data, HDMI could handle the data push from storage devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted April 6, 2015 Supervisor Share Posted April 6, 2015 You're right, HDMI sends 1's and 0's so it would technically be possible. Although I would argue that with the exception of the new Macbooks, most laptops and desktops have multiple USB ports and only one HDMI port, so I'm not sure why one would bother. EDIT: Nevermind, I'm two steps behind in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 You're right, HDMI sends 1's and 0's so it would technically be possible. Although I would argue that with the exception of the new Macbooks, most laptops and desktops have multiple USB ports and only one HDMI port, so I'm not sure why one would bother. EDIT: Nevermind, I'm two steps behind in this discussion. naw don't worry bro. i was thinking installed on the MB in place of the SATA ports. i just read the a PCI-e port could be used for that storage solution with a massive throughput. the PCI-e port in length could handle or be replaced with 4 or 5 hdmi ports. again theorhetically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 AFAIK HDMI doesn't currently send enough electrical current to power a storage device, so they would need an exterior power source, making the whole thing futile. Plus, the majority of storage devices don't even max out the bandwidth capability of USB 3.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 AFAIK HDMI doesn't currently send enough electrical current to power a storage device, so they would need an exterior power source, making the whole thing futile. Plus, the majority of storage devices don't even max out the bandwidth capability of USB 3.0 I was just thinking this possibility while showering. I like to look at things from different angles and possibilities. I could sit something on a table and look at it and walk around it to look at different possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I was just thinking this possibility while showering on the toilet. I like to look at things from different angles and possibilities. I could sit something on a table and look at it and walk around it to look at different possibilities. Then I guess the same could be said of displayport amirite? However I think frequencies come in to play here? (eg display frequency in hertz?) We need some electric techy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcfan Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 It seems the throughput possibilities of USB C vs HDMI is much different in terms of speed. I was thinking based on the data, HDMI could handle the data push from storage devices. theres nothing special about an hdmi connector.its just a cable with copper lines running through it. as for bandwidth, hdmi uses 3 differential channels that carry the AV data, while usb uses 1 differential channel. add 2 more channels to USB 3+ and you'll get similar bandwidth. right now, with 3 channels, hdmi can go ~18Gbps. USB 3+ can do 5-10gbps on 1 channel. Shadrack 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 Then I guess the same could be said of displayport amirite? However I think frequencies come in to play here? (eg display frequency in hertz?) We need some electric techy! found This Added later apparently there isn't enough juice to deliver any power , not remotely for a SDD or HDD. theres nothing special about an hdmi connector.its just a cable with copper lines running through it. as for bandwidth, hdmi uses 3 differential channels that carry the AV data, while usb uses 1 differential channel. add 2 more channels to USB 3+ and you'll get similar bandwidth. right now, with 3 channels, hdmi can go ~18Gbps. USB 3+ can do 5-10gbps on 1 channel. geez imagine if they opened a the second channel? I'd think the third would be used for power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcfan Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 found This Added later geez imagine if they opened a the second channel? I'd think the third would be used for power? usb 3+ has 2 channels, one transmit and one receive. it is usb 2.0 that shares a single channel. adding more channels is a matter of cost. price of the silicon goes up, price of the connector goes up,etc.. power is a separate trace. when I talk about channels, im talking about the high speed data channels only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 usb 3+ has 2 channels, one transmit and one receive. it is usb 2.0 that shares a single channel. adding more channels is a matter of cost. price of the silicon goes up, price of the connector goes up,etc.. power is a separate trace. when I talk about channels, im talking about the high speed data channels only. oh ok, that's what I was thinking. costs and limitations started coming to mind as I read posts here. it will be interesting if they find a suitable replacement to Sata o rwhatever is the norm.. I've been out of the loop for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I guess it would be in theory, however what your thinking of has basically been done with USB Type-C. USB-C, and both Thunderbolt and IEEE-1394 (FireWire) before that. The major advantage USB (the infamous Ubiquitous Support Bus) has is that very ubiquity; it is found even on flat-panel displays that lack HDMI support altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Share Posted April 6, 2015 PGHammer, great point! I was wondering how the USB port has lasted so long. 1. Perhaps, because of the ability for advancements in speed 2. the small factor which make it quite viable for many uses 3. as in #2, the proliferation of USB even in smartphones means its here to stay for some time. I'm sure there is a ceiling for what the highest throughput can be for USB. Firewire to me was a joke. too many limitations and adoption wasn't there except for Desktops (originally). the next iteration of USB is said to be reversible Here (at the loss of compatibility with current iterations) that could prove problematic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts