Smart TVs are everywhere these days, and it feels like you need to go out of your way to get one without those capabilities. It’s nice to have access to a variety of streaming apps, but these TVs have more to offer than that. I would argue that the ports included on your TV matter more than anything, and it’s something you should definitely pay attention to if you have several devices to plug in at once.

Lately, I’ve been looking at HDMI ports, and it’s almost to the point where I need all HDMI 2.1 ports, or I don’t want the TV. My main TV, a Sony Bravia X90J, has two HDMI 2.1 ports and two HDMI 2.0 ports. When I bought it years ago, it was perfectly fine. I also have a receiver plugged into it now, so I have no shortage of ports. However, if I didn’t have a receiver, I would have some trouble with this TV. I have multiple game consoles, a Blu-ray player, and an Apple TV 4K to plug in. Not only are four HDMI ports not enough, but it’s also annoying that they aren’t all 2.1 ports. This is a big problem with TVs in general.

Time to retire the older HDMI ports

Let’s get with the times

Modern game consoles support things like 120 FPS and variable refresh rate, and to utilize those things, you need to plug your console into an HDMI 2.1 port. That’s where the problem comes in with my TV. While I could plug in both my Xbox Series X and PS5 into 2.1 ports, that means I have to make a compromise with my audio. One of these 2.1 ports doubles as an eARC port, and that means you want to plug in your sound system there to get the best performance. That means I really only have one option to pick from with my Bravia. If you play both consoles, you have to either compromise and play one without VRR or you have to move the cable back and forth between the two.

The answer to this for me was to get a receiver, but that’s unfair to ask of everybody. Many high-end TVs come with a bunch of HDMI 2.1 ports, so this isn’t a problem, but budget-friendly options often aren’t as lucky. Even three HDMI 2.1 ports on a TV feels like it’s not enough for me, and four would definitely be the sweet spot. I wish all TVs could get on board with this line of thinking, especially since we’re now looking at a horizon that includes HDMI 2.2. I think it’ll be a while before 2.2 really latches on in the mainstream, but the fact that it’s just around the corner, and we still have TVs shipping with HDMI 2.0 ports, is a bit alarming. Take the TCL QM5K as an example for a second. This TV features just three HDMI ports, and only one is an HDMI 2.1 port. This is a $1,200 TV, at least the 75-inch version is, so there’s really no reason to cut corners like that.

Fortunately, there’s still a good chunk of devices out there that don’t need anything more than a 2.0 port. Your Apple TV 4K and 4K Blu-ray players of the world are just fine with these older ports, as both of them are completely capable of outputting 4K 60 FPS content. However, modern game consoles are a bit hungrier than that, and they need a 2.1 port to get the full experience. What makes HDMI such a cool format is that anything works in any port, and the only limiting factor is the power that port can output and the cable you’re using. For example, even though my 4K Blu-ray player doesn’t need a 2.1 port, there’s nothing wrong with plugging it into one. It’s only a problem if you’re using something like a PS5 in a 2.0 port. Also, your TV needs to have VRR or 120Hz support to begin with for this to matter. Your TV might have a 2.1 port that doesn’t have either of these features.

I would still like to see more HDMI 2.1 ports included on budget TVs. It’s been the norm for long enough that I don’t see the reason to even include 2.0 ports at this point. It’s about to be two generations old, and if we’re looking at a world where TVs have 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 ports, it’s just going to be confusing to the average person. Companies should be looking to minimize the confusion instead of maximizing it, so I hope that doesn’t happen.

A receiver solves this problem, but that’s not the point

Just make it simpler for everybody

I got around my HDMI issues by getting a receiver that has more ports than I know what to do with. This lets me plug everything into its proper port, and it’s been a game-changer for me. The problem is that it’s completely overkill for most people, and I wouldn’t really feel comfortable telling somebody to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on an extra electronic just to get some added functionality that their TV should already have. To be fair, your TV might already have enough HDMI 2.1 ports, and that’s a problem I don’t see many high-end TVs have.

It’s when you look at the under $1,000 TVs, a price range I would assume is the most popular among owners, that you start to see the HDMI compromises being made. At the end of the day, it’s just another thing to consider when shopping for a TV, and although I have a receiver to solve the problem, it doesn’t help for my other rooms. I have an Amazon Fire TV Omni QLED in my spare bedroom, and I actually picked up a cheap receiver to avoid any HDMI issues I might run into. Funnily enough, I only use the receiver for its ARC support, but my point still stands.

I don’t really like the trend of having to deal with my device’s hardware limitations by having to go out and buy a third-party device. I see it often with laptops and the need for an external hub. I like these hubs as much as the next person, but I’d much rather see all laptops launch with HDMI ports, SD card slots, Ethernet ports, etc. That’s not the world we’re in anymore, and it’s a real shame. Some of these hubs get really expensive, and the same thing can be said for a receiver. What’s nice about a receiver is that it can handle my audio, and there’s nothing that a TV can do to equal it. I think it’s always worth adding a receiver or soundbar to a TV, but if you’re doing it to get more HDMI ports, then I think it’s an area where the TV manufacturers can improve.