Monitors are generally connected through DisplayPort or Thunderbolt, not HDMI, so there's no reason for HDCP to enter here. The card in question does have a HDCP output, but advanced features are only available through DisplayPort.
It might surprise you that most monitors out there, especially the cheap garbage ones from Amazon/Walmart that most consumers have in their homes, are connected via HDMI.
As someone running their monitor over HDMI, this is news to me. If it gives the resolution and framerate of the monitor, what's the difference if it's HDMI or DisplayPort?
Displayport used to be much better but now they both cover virtually everyones needs. Now the main difference is HDMI has a licensing fee. Some major TV companies are in the org so they don't have to pay it which is why TVs always use HDMI and GPUs usually have more displayport because those companies have to pay for hdmi.
For you as an end consumer nothing if bandwidth is enough with either cabke, but techies like us will be sticklers that one is more open than the other, not bound by royalties and such.
That, and some video cards support higher resolutions over DisplayPort. For example, while my 2013 Mac Pro has both HDMI and Thuderbolt/Mini DisplayPort outputs, the only way to get 2160p60 HDMI output (without chroma subsampling) is via a DisplayPort-to-HDMI 2.x adapter (and I had to try about half a dozen different adapters before I found one that does this correctly).
Displayport usually has something like 50 % higher bandwidth compared to the HDMI standard of the same vintage. Which makes sense, since home video folks are fine with like 15 pictures per second and 4:0:0 chroma subsampling, but that doesn't really work for computers...
