Monitor Tests Forum

I have lg 25um58-p 2х HDMI 1.4 2560x1080 aspect ratio 21:9 monitor with GA-78LMT-USB3 motherboard (ATI RADEON 3000 Graphics onboard), Windows 10.

I applied the patch for AMD/ATI Pixel Clock Patcher all values current state "already patched", value Low-resolution limit current state "found".

The motheboard manufacture stated: * HDMI 1.3 certified in video spec only, Integrated HDMI/DVI/D-sub for Full HD 1080 contents playback, 1 x HDMI port, supporting a maximum resolution of 1920x1200 (Note 3).

AMD Vision Engine Control Center have no any videocard settings, but CPUs, it have not the offical support for Windows 10. Max resolution is 1920*1080 in display settings.

Detailed resolution found 2560*1080 @ 59.99 Hz (185.58 Mhz -/-).

The problem I can not add my custom resolution 2560*1080 by other resolutions to standard resolutions and the resolution not listed in standard resolutions drop-down menu. It colored red when I trying enter the monitor default resolution 2560*1080

I calculated the pixels: 2560*1080*59.99= 165,86. I ready to down refresh rates.

ATI display adapter (0x9116)
Internal Dac (400 MHz)
@oem14.inf, %amd9616.1%;ATI Radeon 3000
BK-ATI VER010.094.001.033.000000

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc
13.01.2015
8.970.100.9001 (driver version)

Standard Timing:


Standard Timings n° 1
X Resolution : 1152
Y Resolution : 864
Vertical Frequency : 75

Standard Timings n° 2
X Resolution : 1280
Y Resolution : 1024
Vertical Frequency : 60

Standard Timings n° 3
X Resolution : 1280
Y Resolution : 720
Vertical Frequency : 60

Standard Timings n° 4
X Resolution : 1600
Y Resolution : 900
Vertical Frequency : 60

Preferred Detailed Timing:

Pixel Clock : 185,58 Mhz

Horizontal Active : 2560 pixels
Horizontal Blanking : 224 pixels
Horizontal Sync Offset : 64 pixels
Horizontal Sync Pulse Width : 64 pixels
Horizontal Border : 0 pixels
Horizontal Size : 673 mm

Vertical Active : 1080 lines
Vertical Blanking : 31 lines
Vertical Sync Offset : 3 lines
Vertical Sync Pulse Width : 10 lines
Vertical Border : 0 lines
Vertical Size : 284 mm

Input Type : Digital Separate
Interlaced : False
VerticalPolarity : False
HorizontalPolarity : False

Detailed Timing #2:

Pixel Clock : 148,5 Mhz

Horizontal Active : 1920 pixels
Horizontal Blanking : 280 pixels
Horizontal Sync Offset : 88 pixels
Horizontal Sync Pulse Width : 44 pixels
Horizontal Border : 0 pixels
Horizontal Size : 673 mm

Vertical Active : 1080 lines
Vertical Blanking : 45 lines
Vertical Sync Offset : 4 lines
Vertical Sync Pulse Width : 5 lines
Vertical Border : 0 lines
Vertical Size : 284 mm

Input Type : Digital Separate
Interlaced : False
VerticalPolarity : True
HorizontalPolarity : True

Monitor Range Limit:

Maximum Vertical Frequency : 75 Hz
Minimum Vertical Frequency : 56 Hz
Maximum Horizontal Frequency : 90 KHz
Minimum Horizontal Frequency : 30 KHz
Maximum Pixel Clock : 240 MHz


Please help me resolve it somehow

(09-24-2019 02:47 PM)TheSTronic Wrote: [ -> ]I have lg 25um58-p 2х HDMI 1.4 2560x1080 aspect ratio 21:9 monitor with GA-78LMT-USB3 motherboard (ATI RADEON 3000 Graphics onboard), Windows 10.

I applied the patch for AMD/ATI Pixel Clock Patcher all values current state "already patched", value Low-resolution limit current state "found".

That GPU is too old. HDMI with that GPU is limited to 165 MHz pixel clock, which is not enough for 2560x1080 @ 60 Hz. AMD didn't officially support higher pixel clocks with HDMI until the 7000-series, and the patcher can only increase the HDMI limit for 5000-series and newer GPUs. You can try adding a detailed resolution for 2560x1080 @ 50 Hz instead of 60 Hz if the monitor allows lower refresh rates. If not, you should really get a newer video card, even if it's a cheap low-end one.

(09-24-2019 05:58 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-24-2019 02:47 PM)TheSTronic Wrote: [ -> ]I have lg 25um58-p 2х HDMI 1.4 2560x1080 aspect ratio 21:9 monitor with GA-78LMT-USB3 motherboard (ATI RADEON 3000 Graphics onboard), Windows 10.

I applied the patch for AMD/ATI Pixel Clock Patcher all values current state "already patched", value Low-resolution limit current state "found".

That GPU is too old. HDMI with that GPU is limited to 165 MHz pixel clock, which is not enough for 2560x1080 @ 60 Hz. AMD didn't officially support higher pixel clocks with HDMI until the 7000-series, and the patcher can only increase the HDMI limit for 5000-series and newer GPUs. You can try adding a detailed resolution for 2560x1080 @ 50 Hz instead of 60 Hz if the monitor allows lower refresh rates. If not, you should really get a newer video card, even if it's a cheap low-end one.

I had followed you advice and added 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz in detailed resolutions (CRU 1.4.1) which is under 165 MHz pixel clock after this I saw it in display resolution settings and applied it. It work pretty well, now I am write it to you in 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz on ATI Radeon 3000 onboard. The monitor flicker free, so I do not think the lower refresh rate make any harm for my eyes.

I failed to add any higher values than 165 Mhz. The monitor can work 2560x1080 @ 75 Hz with some video cards and I think with a pixel clock patcher it should done the best (not found it for now).

For general users it almost impossible to make it work, but to upgrade their PCs even if they are satisfied with the current perfomence of their PCs. It was such a headache, I never thought before manufactures use some connections standards to limit the monitors compitability. I always thought only the GPU speed will affect a maximum resolution.

For now I am happy that with your help I done it

Are you know how to initially power on my PC with 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz? For now it 1920*1080 in bios and after windows 10 loaded it becomes 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz.

(09-25-2019 10:36 AM)TheSTronic Wrote: [ -> ]Are you know how to initially power on my PC with 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz? For now it 1920*1080 in bios and after windows 10 loaded it becomes 2560x1080 @ 54 Hz.

The only way to control the resolution outside of the OS is to flash a new EDID to the monitor, which is usually write-protected.

Thank you, I got it all.

Will this also work on Ryzen 3 2200G and AM4 A320? I tried using this app using DVI connection and my monitor went black

(09-28-2019 12:30 AM)jhundelafuente Wrote: [ -> ]Will this also work on Ryzen 3 2200G and AM4 A320? I tried using this app using DVI connection and my monitor went black

It should. What edits did you make?

ToastyX please help me, I have a SyncMaster 794MB plus CRT monitor, and with it using its CRU tool I can force resolutions of 640x480p 144hz, 1024x768i 162hz, 640x480i 162hz. And I have some doubts.
Why can not I put 640x480p 162hz, and I can 1024x768i 162hz? Is there any way to force 1024x768p 144hz or 162hz?
Or 640x480p 162hz?

And does the interlaced signal work as efficiently as the progressive signal? At least in a matter of movement on the screen, forgetting the quality. For example, when selecting the option it appears as 1024x768i 81hz and not 1024x768i 162hz.

I use a 7970 ghz DUAL-X here

(09-28-2019 03:15 AM)falcao123456 Wrote: [ -> ]ToastyX please help me, I have a SyncMaster 794MB plus CRT monitor, and with it using its CRU tool I can force resolutions of 640x480p 144hz, 1024x768i 162hz, 640x480i 162hz. And I have some doubts.
Why can not I put 640x480p 162hz, and I can 1024x768i 162hz? Is there any way to force 1024x768p 144hz or 162hz?
Or 640x480p 162hz?

Are you asking about adding resolutions or about the monitor displaying the resolutions? If you can add 1024x768i @ 162 Hz, then you should be able to add 640x480p @ 162 Hz, but whether or not the monitor will display the resolution is a different question. The specs state the monitor supports a horizontal scan rate up to 70 kHz, which would allow 1024x768i @ 162 Hz but not 640x480p @ 162 Hz. If you can add 640x480p @ 144 Hz, then the actual limit might be higher. You'll have to test what the monitor will accept.

(09-28-2019 03:15 AM)falcao123456 Wrote: [ -> ]And does the interlaced signal work as efficiently as the progressive signal? At least in a matter of movement on the screen, forgetting the quality. For example, when selecting the option it appears as 1024x768i 81hz and not 1024x768i 162hz.

Windows lists the frame rate, while CRU uses the field rate. Visually, the movement updates at the field rate. It's just missing half the lines per refresh. You can check by adding 80 Hz interlaced, which Windows will list as 40 Hz interlaced, but it will be smoother than 40 Hz progressive and won't flicker as badly.

(09-28-2019 04:00 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2019 03:15 AM)falcao123456 Wrote: [ -> ]ToastyX please help me, I have a SyncMaster 794MB plus CRT monitor, and with it using its CRU tool I can force resolutions of 640x480p 144hz, 1024x768i 162hz, 640x480i 162hz. And I have some doubts.
Why can not I put 640x480p 162hz, and I can 1024x768i 162hz? Is there any way to force 1024x768p 144hz or 162hz?
Or 640x480p 162hz?

Are you asking about adding resolutions or about the monitor displaying the resolutions? If you can add 1024x768i @ 162 Hz, then you should be able to add 640x480p @ 162 Hz, but whether or not the monitor will display the resolution is a different question. The specs state the monitor supports a horizontal scan rate up to 70 kHz, which would allow 1024x768i @ 162 Hz but not 640x480p @ 162 Hz. If you can add 640x480p @ 144 Hz, then the actual limit might be higher. You'll have to test what the monitor will accept.

(09-28-2019 03:15 AM)falcao123456 Wrote: [ -> ]And does the interlaced signal work as efficiently as the progressive signal? At least in a matter of movement on the screen, forgetting the quality. For example, when selecting the option it appears as 1024x768i 81hz and not 1024x768i 162hz.

Windows lists the frame rate, while CRU uses the field rate. Visually, the movement updates at the field rate. It's just missing half the lines per refresh. You can check by adding 80 Hz interlaced, which Windows will list as 40 Hz interlaced, but it will be smoother than 40 Hz progressive and won't flicker as badly.

---------"Are you asking about adding resolutions or about the monitor displaying the resolutions? "---------
I am asking both.

I can put 640x480p (144hz), 1024x768i (162hz) and 640x480i (162hz). But what I do not understand is precisely because I can not put 640x480p 162hz. Since the monitor supports 1024x768i (162hz) which is already a high value.




--------"Windows lists the frame rate, while CRU uses the field rate. Visually, the movement updates at the field rate. It's just missing half the lines per refresh. You can check by adding 80 Hz interlaced, which Windows will list as 40 Hz interlaced, but it will be smoother than 40 Hz progressive and won't flicker as badly."---------

So in the visual matter (movement) it is really showing 162hz. if you put 640x480i (162hz) or 1024x768i (162hz) against 640x480p 144hz, will the resolutions (640x480i (162hz) and 1024x768i (162hz) win?

one thing i forgot to mention is that i use the
HDMI to VGA converter.
https://cdn-cosmos.bluesoft.com.br/produ...8575248124

and while I'm using windows with interlaced resolutions like (480i and 768i (162), the value 42.5k / 162 pn and 65.8k / 162 pn appears on the monitor panel.

Anyway, is there any way to force more than that?
For I do not think for example that 640x480p 144hz is the limit of this monitor. it should surely support 145hz up to 160hz at least at this resolution, and the weirdest thing is that at 1024x768p the maximum I can climb is up to 90hz, and the monitor already comes with 85hz enabled.