Monitor Tests Forum

Full Version: Custom Resolution Utility (CRU)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441
thank u for your work but i have a question:
all the guides online are talking about how this works with the amd control program
but now nvidia driver 417.71 supports freesync - since i dont have freesync monitor i dont even have the option to turn it on on nvidia control panel
is there a way to use to this on nvidia crads and make it work with the new nvidia drivers?
thanks...
CRU is not for adding FreeSync to non-FreeSync monitors, especially with NVIDIA.
(01-16-2019 10:56 AM)maxchaos Wrote: [ -> ]Hi ToastyX thank you for your beautyfull app,I had used It for a while on my LG ultrawide monitor,today I was testing It for enlarge the freesync range,after putting the valute in the edit (45-75) i clicked apply and restart64,but the PC seems to freezer,but It work in background,and now It freeze everytime after booting normally Windows,in safe mode It start,I tried using reset,but It doesn't seem to work,in HDMI the monitor work perfectly,what di you suggest?
Running reset-all.exe should remove all overrides. CRU does not change anything else. If there is no * next to the monitor name/status, then there is no override.
(01-16-2019 07:11 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]CRU is not for adding FreeSync to non-FreeSync monitors, especially with NVIDIA.

But can be used to "activate" freesync in some korean panels in AMD. Or I'm wrong?

If I read correctly, if you add hdmi block to a Qnix or Xstar panel you can get some of these monitors to work with FreeSync.

Me question is, is possible to make a panel appear as a DP connector display like you can make it appear as a HDMI in the AMD method? To try to make adaptive sync work in these monitors?
(01-16-2019 08:35 PM)Blackdragonbird Wrote: [ -> ]But can be used to "activate" freesync in some korean panels in AMD. Or I'm wrong?

If I read correctly, if you add hdmi block to a Qnix or Xstar panel you can get some of these monitors to work with FreeSync.
Yes, but NVIDIA does not support HDMI FreeSync, and AMD has issues like having to reconnect the monitor to trick the driver into recognizing it as HDMI. The QNIX/X-Star/Catleap monitors are a special case where the trick works because they don't have scalers, but most people are asking about monitors that definitely can't do it.


(01-16-2019 08:35 PM)Blackdragonbird Wrote: [ -> ]Me question is, is possible to make a panel appear as a DP connector display like you can make it appear as a HDMI in the AMD method? To try to make adaptive sync work in these monitors?
No. DVI and HDMI use the same signaling, so the HDMI data block is how the driver determines which it is. DisplayPort is completely different.
Understood. Them nVidia has to allow adaptive sync over HDMI to allow us to try to activate it in these Korean panels.

Thanks you. =)
(01-15-2019 06:46 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-15-2019 10:37 AM)TnF Wrote: [ -> ]Hello ToastyX and thanks for creating this utility. I have a new workstation laptop here that i borrow from work to use at home until i have funds to build a PC, it is a HP Zbook 17 with coffee lake 8850H and quadro p3200. I successfully overclocked the monitor LGD059E to 100hz@1080p without dropping frames (ufo frame skipping test). All with latest intel and nvidia drivers.

My question is that if i add a resolution over 100hz it will not appear inside the intel graphics control panel. (now that i think about it i haven't checked if it appears inside windows display properties; maybe it is a limit in the intel control panel edit: checked anything above 100hz doesn't appear). Any idea why this happens..also noticed it says that the bit-depth is 6-bit instead of 8-bit..weird.
Probably bandwidth limitations. DisplayPort has the ability to drop down to 6-bit color when bandwidth is limited, so it's likely the laptop has an embedded DisplayPort (eDP) connection to the panel.

Yes indeed, 240Mhz limit. As of yesterday i didn't know what pixel clock meant, either way i managed to get to 1080p 103hz with original clocks and 105hz with custom timings confirmed no frame skipping. I couldn't find a timing combination that was stable at 106mhz. Is there is a methodology with the timings? I did several tests where i found min values for all 6 timings (back porch, front porch, sync, both H and V), but i couldn't use a combination of mins without problems. Is there is a methodology to this? I spend the whole day before calling it day to push to more than 105hz. The obvious thing however is that pesky 240mhz pixel clock limit which if removed it might be possible to push further these displays (assuming eDP is not maxed out at 240Mhz, is should be underspec since i'm already there).

Too bad you haven't developed an intel pixel clock patcherTongue I think more people would want one especially after all the info and guides i found over your tool in laptop forums mainly here ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/...us.802167/ ).
Virtually all laptops at the moment (since i-2nd gen are running an intel cpu with integrated graphics and i am not happy to say it as an amd guy), similar to all people with a 7700k and the like (although desktop users usually run discrete graphics on desktop that outputs directly to the monitor). I still don't have my own desktop and use this workstation laptop i borrow from work but i can do some testing if needed.

The only other thing that remains is that for some reason any resolution over 60hz reports 6-bit colour depth instead of 8-bit but that was a bug in the intel driver so it must be still present (i will write them about this).
(01-17-2019 07:34 AM)TnF Wrote: [ -> ]Yes indeed, 240Mhz limit. As of yesterday i didn't know what pixel clock meant, either way i managed to get to 1080p 103hz with original clocks and 105hz with custom timings confirmed no frame skipping. I couldn't find a timing combination that was stable at 106mhz. Is there is a methodology with the timings? I did several tests where i found min values for all 6 timings (back porch, front porch, sync, both H and V), but i couldn't use a combination of mins without problems. Is there is a methodology to this?
With laptop panels, the minimum is usually limited by the blanking, which is front porch + sync width + back porch. The individual values don't matter as much.

(01-17-2019 07:34 AM)TnF Wrote: [ -> ]I spend the whole day before calling it day to push to more than 105hz. The obvious thing however is that pesky 240mhz pixel clock limit which if removed it might be possible to push further these displays (assuming eDP is not maxed out at 240Mhz, is should be underspec since i'm already there).

Too bad you haven't developed an intel pixel clock patcherTongue I think more people would want one especially after all the info and guides i found over your tool in laptop forums mainly here ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/...us.802167/ ).
A patcher wouldn't make a difference. The patchers are for external monitors and have no effect on DisplayPort limits.
Hello, I have a problem with my tv and windows hdr. Windows can't detect color primaries information from TV and works with own Color Primaries: Red(0.659180,0.339844), Green(0.244141,0.669922), Blue(0.129883,0.040039), White Point(0.312500,0.329102)
That default color space doesn't match DCI-p3 and doesn't match real color space of my TV. SO red color doesn't look saturated as intended because 0.659180,0.339844 is worse than 0.68, 0.32.
Is there any way to everwrite these values for windows HDR(can be checked by VESA test program)?
[Image: WsM7vWO.jpg]
(01-17-2019 06:11 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-17-2019 07:34 AM)TnF Wrote: [ -> ]Yes indeed, 240Mhz limit. As of yesterday i didn't know what pixel clock meant, either way i managed to get to 1080p 103hz with original clocks and 105hz with custom timings confirmed no frame skipping. I couldn't find a timing combination that was stable at 106mhz. Is there is a methodology with the timings? I did several tests where i found min values for all 6 timings (back porch, front porch, sync, both H and V), but i couldn't use a combination of mins without problems. Is there is a methodology to this?
With laptop panels, the minimum is usually limited by the blanking, which is front porch + sync width + back porch. The individual values don't matter as much.
Yes indeed from the data i gathered testing you are pretty much spot on - wish i knew this sooner it would save me lots of timeTongue

Quote:
(01-17-2019 07:34 AM)TnF Wrote: [ -> ]I spend the whole day before calling it day to push to more than 105hz. The obvious thing however is that pesky 240mhz pixel clock limit which if removed it might be possible to push further these displays (assuming eDP is not maxed out at 240Mhz, is should be underspec since i'm already there).

Too bad you haven't developed an intel pixel clock patcherTongue I think more people would want one especially after all the info and guides i found over your tool in laptop forums mainly here ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/...us.802167/ ).
A patcher wouldn't make a difference. The patchers are for external monitors and have no effect on DisplayPort limits.

Can you explain why this is? This laptop can be configured with a 4K screen @ 60hz, and even 10 bit (8+2 dithering) depth. This approximately required 4x the bandwidth as there are as 4x as many pixels in my understanding. So theoretically the interface should be able to do 4x60=240hz (i know i don't calculate the timings here but it's to get my point through). If i were to guess the interface is the latest eDP v1.4b which has more than enough bandwidth to do 1080p@120hz for example. Isn't the pixel clock rate related to the bandwidth of the interface? Why there is a 240mhz limit? If it was different how come normal DP (which eDP is based of) can run past that limit and clock patcher is available? :/
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441
Reference URL's