Using CAT6 cable instead of HDMI 2 for a 4K display?

[kathayes]

I have HDMI 1 (or some other point version) running from my receiver, through my wall and to the back of my TV. I now need to upgrade my receiver so it supports 4K and the cable. Instead of getting a HDMI 2 cable, someone suggested I run a CAT6 cable so it is future proof and will also work with 8K in the future, though I will need some adapter/converter.

1. Any thoughts on running CAT6 instead of HDMI 2? Are there any downsides?
2. What adapter do I need to connect the CAT6 cable to my 4K TV?

Thanks.

 

[Calculagator]

It sound to me like you have either misunderstood your friend or your friend is making stuff up. There are some devices that can cram an HDMI signal across a network cable (cat6), but they aren't as good as native HDMI. I've never heard of any that support hdmi 2 data rates. It might make sense to run CAT6 in addition to HDMI, but running it instead would be taking a step backward.

 

[americanaudiophile]

I agree that running a good quality HDMI cable is your best option.
I would also suggest you run at least 2 CAT6 cables as spares. They can be used for a number of functions with adapters and are cheap.
There are adapters that will run HDMI 4K over CAT6 but how well they work vs the price you pay is the issue. The 10baseT type may be the best bet but not cheap for pro quality.
http/www.markertek.com/product/kan-hdbase70poer/kanex-pro-hdbase70poer-hdbaset-lite-70m-4k-hdmi-over-single-cat6-receiver-only?gclid=CJC-66mbrc4CFQEmhgod8AgAMw

 

[Calculagator]

. . .
http/www.markertek.com/product/kan-hdbase70poer/kanex-pro-hdbase70poer-hdbaset-lite-70m-4k-hdmi-over-single-cat6-receiver-only?gclid=CJC-66mbrc4CFQEmhgod8AgAMw

The "4K" advertising on those is misleading. They do support the actual resolution, but they don't support the full bandwidth required for full-color, full-speed 4k. Real HDMI 2.0 has almost double the bandwidth of these adapters.