Monitor Tests Forum

(07-08-2015 08:28 PM)mykeel Wrote: [ -> ]well I spoke too soon.i can get the tv to 120hz but even though the green level light displays that sound is comin through, get no sound from speakers. ive tried all the hdmi dat files to no avail. why must amd be so complicated]

Did you check the Windows sound settings to make sure the speakers are configured correctly?

It shouldn't be complicated. Audio should have worked with the default extension block (which NVIDIA doesn't support with EDID overrides), but the custom extension block might have been needed to get 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz because AMD's driver listens to the TMDS limit defined by the TV in the HDMI support data block.

What timing parameters are you using for 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz? They should be the same as the default 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz with the pixel clock at 297 MHz to get the official CEA timing commonly supported by HDTVs. Simply clicking "Add..." and changing the refresh rate to 120 Hz should have done this. If for some reason that doesn't work, you can try adding 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz in a TV resolutions data block in the custom extension block, but you shouldn't have to do this.

Hi,

Followed multiple guides, however nothing showing up in Monitor Resolutions.

Setup:
AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Asus PB287Q @ 4K resolution

Refresh Rates Attempted:
3840x2160 @ 65Hz / Manual
3840x2160 @ 70Hz / LCD Standard
3840x2160 @ 73Hz / LCD Standard

Nothing shows up at all.

I didn't delete the detailed resolutions that show by default. I ran the AMD patcher before I made changes. I ran restart.exe. I have no custom resolutions running in AMD Catalyst.

I'm stumped. I tried to find the same issue but couldn't seem to spot it. Very sorry if this is a clone :-(!

Thanks for the guidance!

Best,
Bakawun

(07-13-2015 04:06 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]Followed multiple guides, however nothing showing up in Monitor Resolutions.

Setup:
AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Asus PB287Q @ 4K resolution

Refresh Rates Attempted:
3840x2160 @ 65Hz / Manual
3840x2160 @ 70Hz / LCD Standard
3840x2160 @ 73Hz / LCD Standard

Are you using DisplayPort? Those resolutions have very high pixel clocks. The driver is probably not allowing pixel clocks that high, and the patch doesn't affect DisplayPort. Chances are that monitor can't handle higher refresh rates properly anyway.

(07-15-2015 02:10 AM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-13-2015 04:06 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]Followed multiple guides, however nothing showing up in Monitor Resolutions.

Setup:
AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Asus PB287Q @ 4K resolution

Refresh Rates Attempted:
3840x2160 @ 65Hz / Manual
3840x2160 @ 70Hz / LCD Standard
3840x2160 @ 73Hz / LCD Standard

Are you using DisplayPort? Those resolutions have very high pixel clocks. The driver is probably not allowing pixel clocks that high, and the patch doesn't affect DisplayPort. Chances are that monitor can't handle higher refresh rates properly anyway.

Hi ToastyX,

Wow thanks so much for the quick reply!

The display handles max 75Hz according to AMD/existing modes at different resolutions in "List All," is it any more likely that running at a lower resolution (e.g. 1080p) would work?

Thanks again!

Bakawun

(07-15-2015 02:18 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]The display handles max 75Hz according to AMD/existing modes at different resolutions in "List All," is it any more likely that running at a lower resolution (e.g. 1080p) would work?

Have you tested those resolutions for frame skipping? http://testufo.com/#test=frameskipping

If the lower resolutions skip frames, then higher refresh rates probably won't work properly at any resolution.

(07-15-2015 02:22 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-15-2015 02:18 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]The display handles max 75Hz according to AMD/existing modes at different resolutions in "List All," is it any more likely that running at a lower resolution (e.g. 1080p) would work?

Have you tested those resolutions for frame skipping? http://testufo.com/#test=frameskipping

If the lower resolutions skip frames, then higher refresh rates probably won't work properly at any resolution.

Wow do you ever know your stuff...

I'm going to get a gaming monitor to replace this one, what do you recommend (assuming no budget constraints, and knowing that I'm running on a pretty solid setup)?

Also, any thoughts on Freesync/G-Sync?

I was looking at the Acer XG270HU:
-144Hz
-1ms GTG
-Freesync
-Good size (not stupidly large)
-Sadly not curved, but there don't seem to be ultra-slim bezels on curved displays with high refresh rates AND low response times.

If you're too busy to reply to the monitor opinion question, no worries please disregard. Sorry for taking up your time!

Thanks!

Best,
Bakawun

Hi,

I'm going to build a Nvidia surround setup. Before that, i'd like know if EDID
overrides in Surround mode work or is still broken.

Thanks for reply

(07-15-2015 02:10 AM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-13-2015 04:06 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]Followed multiple guides, however nothing showing up in Monitor Resolutions.

Setup:
AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Asus PB287Q @ 4K resolution

Refresh Rates Attempted:
3840x2160 @ 65Hz / Manual
3840x2160 @ 70Hz / LCD Standard
3840x2160 @ 73Hz / LCD Standard

Are you using DisplayPort? Those resolutions have very high pixel clocks. The driver is probably not allowing pixel clocks that high, and the patch doesn't affect DisplayPort. Chances are that monitor can't handle higher refresh rates properly anyway.

ToastyX is right.
What is the Vertical Total of those resolutions you created?
I have a feeling that as far as strange resolutions are concerned, the Nvidia control panel's resolution applet is handling things differently than CRU, while for normal resolutions, they both work the same with automatic timings. But I could just be blowing smoke out of my butt (this is over my head).

Check out this thread where a poster was asking about a 1440p resolution on a 1080p display and we were trying to help him, then some bizarre stuff happened.

I know I'm getting WAY OT and some of my posts don't seem logical but I think I need toastyX's help here.

http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2300

I don't know if its AMD/Nvidia or not but their drivers or the proper method of custom resolution creation seem to not be allowing the same timings that the Nvidia Control panel allows for bizarre resolutions. I don't know if the Nvidia CP is interpolating something but I think it's changing or reducing timings if what you're trying to create is out of specification.

Check out what happens when you try to create a 1920x1440 4:3 resolution on a 1080p monitor (yes some 1440p resolutions can be created on 1080p monitors but they are interpolated).

(e.g. Masterotaku was able to create a custom 2880x2160 60hz resolution on a Benq XL2411Z (a 1920x1080 screen), but only by using the Nvidia control panel).

back to the 1920x1440 example:

The Nvidia custom resolution utilty creates it with a 1144 vertical total with automatic timings at a custom 129hz refresh rate. The pixel clock is a decent 306.9 MHz and works (quite nicely)

ToastyX CRU creates it with a (ahem) 1531 vertical total and a sky high pixel clock of 410 mhz. It creates this on both AMD And Nvidia cards.

Needless to say, the CRU created resolution doesn't work. Anything above Vertical Total 1502 displays a black screen "Out of range!" on the OSD. VT 1502 works, but there are swimming pixels all over the place on the screen (this is through displayport btw, not DVI).

Attempting to manually enter a 1144 VT to match the Nvidia panel does not work. 1144 remains red and half of the blanking and back porch are empty. Not only that, the Nvidia created resolution does not appear in CRU, either. So I have no idea what's going on.

A Custom 100hz 1920x1440 resolution with a vertical total manually decreased from 1510 (default for CRU automatic) to VT 1502 (the highest the Benq monitor will allow) works perfectly, no swimming pixels and no "Out of range" error. Note: lowering the VT to 1485 (the default for manual creation originally) brings an "Out of range" error although there is still a display (it's not a black screen) but the OSD is locked out.

I suspect the Nvidia drivers are handling this differently than CRU, and I think CRU is actually doing this correctly (I mean, a 1144 vertical total with 1440 vertical lines active resolution? This should be an invalid entry).


@OP: Do you have an old Nvidia card sitting around somewhere?
If it's not too much trouble, uninstall the 295x2 and try a backup Nvidia card (that can support the monitor), assuming the NV card has displayport.

Try creating those resolutions you listed in your post with the Nvidia control panel as custom resolutions (Automatic) and then compare the timings with the ToastyX one. I'm willing to bet that the Vertical total is FAR lower than what CRU is entering. if you don't, then disregard.

I'm going to try the 1920x1440 on an Asus VG248QE, as the scaler is different than the one the Benq's use (the Benq uses the Mstar 8556T scaler, which allows a max VT of 1502). The Asus VG248QE goes black screen out of range, as soon as the VT is past 1200 (on any resolution).

(07-16-2015 07:47 AM)falkentyne Wrote: [ -> ]What is the Vertical Total of those resolutions you created?
I have a feeling that as far as strange resolutions are concerned, the Nvidia control panel's resolution applet is handling things differently than CRU, while for normal resolutions, they both work the same with automatic timings. But I could just be blowing smoke out of my butt (this is over my head).

Check out this thread where a poster was asking about a 1440p resolution on a 1080p display and we were trying to help him, then some bizarre stuff happened.

I know I'm getting WAY OT and some of my posts don't seem logical but I think I need toastyX's help here.

http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2300

I don't know if its AMD/Nvidia or not but their drivers or the proper method of custom resolution creation seem to not be allowing the same timings that the Nvidia Control panel allows for bizarre resolutions. I don't know if the Nvidia CP is interpolating something but I think it's changing or reducing timings if what you're trying to create is out of specification.

That has nothing to do with what he asked, and 3840x2160 is not a "bizarre" resolution. You're making this way more complicated than it is.

(07-16-2015 07:47 AM)falkentyne Wrote: [ -> ]Check out what happens when you try to create a 1920x1440 4:3 resolution on a 1080p monitor (yes some 1440p resolutions can be created on 1080p monitors but they are interpolated).

(e.g. Masterotaku was able to create a custom 2880x2160 60hz resolution on a Benq XL2411Z (a 1920x1080 screen), but only by using the Nvidia control panel).

back to the 1920x1440 example:

The Nvidia custom resolution utilty creates it with a 1144 vertical total with automatic timings at a custom 129hz refresh rate. The pixel clock is a decent 306.9 MHz and works (quite nicely)

ToastyX CRU creates it with a (ahem) 1531 vertical total and a sky high pixel clock of 410 mhz. It creates this on both AMD And Nvidia cards.

Needless to say, the CRU created resolution doesn't work. Anything above Vertical Total 1502 displays a black screen "Out of range!" on the OSD. VT 1502 works, but there are swimming pixels all over the place on the screen (this is through displayport btw, not DVI).

Attempting to manually enter a 1144 VT to match the Nvidia panel does not work. 1144 remains red and half of the blanking and back porch are empty. Not only that, the Nvidia created resolution does not appear in CRU, either. So I have no idea what's going on.

You completely ignored the active resolution, which shows 1920x1080. That's what it's actually sending to the monitor. If the custom resolution doesn't match the active resolution, then it's scaled by the GPU. That's how the whole downsampling craze started. NVIDIA's driver is scaling 1920x1440 @ 129 Hz down to 1920x1080 @ 129 Hz using the 1920x1080 @ 120 Hz timing parameters defined by the monitor. CRU can't add scaled resolutions, so there's no way to do that with CRU. NVIDIA's custom resolutions have never appeared in CRU, so I don't know why you're confused about that. CRU creates EDID overrides. NVIDIA's custom resolutions are completely separate.

(07-16-2015 07:47 AM)falkentyne Wrote: [ -> ]@OP: Do you have an old Nvidia card sitting around somewhere?
If it's not too much trouble, uninstall the 295x2 and try a backup Nvidia card (that can support the monitor), assuming the NV card has displayport.

Try creating those resolutions you listed in your post with the Nvidia control panel as custom resolutions (Automatic) and then compare the timings with the ToastyX one. I'm willing to bet that the Vertical total is FAR lower than what CRU is entering. if you don't, then disregard.

It would just create those resolutions using the 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz timing parameters.

(07-15-2015 03:18 PM)Bakawun Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to get a gaming monitor to replace this one, what do you recommend (assuming no budget constraints, and knowing that I'm running on a pretty solid setup)?

Also, any thoughts on Freesync/G-Sync?

I was looking at the Acer XG270HU:
-144Hz
-1ms GTG
-Freesync
-Good size (not stupidly large)
-Sadly not curved, but there don't seem to be ultra-slim bezels on curved displays with high refresh rates AND low response times.

I would prefer the Acer XB270HU with the ULMB backlight strobing feature to eliminate motion blur, but that (and GSYNC) only works with NVIDIA cards. The XG270HU doesn't have backlight strobing, but it supports FreeSync with AMD cards.