Monitor Tests Forum

Hi i have the AOC 24G2U monitor and 5700 XT. While running it at 144hz, the GPU VRAM won't downclock itself. What i found through my research is that the monitor needs higher vertical blanking value, but the problem is if i increase that it will go out of the upper range of horizontal frequency and exceed pixel clock rate[this can be mitigated by decreasing the horizontal blanking] and cause the "out of range" black screen when running 3D app[sometimes it happens immediately if the values are too high]. So my question is -is it safe to increase the monitor max acceptable values for horizontal frequency and pixel clock rate. Right now the monitor is running with 158KHz h.freq and 325MHz pixel clock rate, while the maximal limits are 160KHz for h.freq and 330MHz for pixel clock rate. I would like to increase the first value by 5-10KHz to 170KHz and the second value by 15MHz to 340MHz -this will give me a leeway to increase the v.blanking to 1157[from 1098, that's just 18 blank pixel, extremely small and i can understand why vram is not downcloking]. Will this cause any adverse effects like damage to my monitor or shorten lifespan? If not, would there be any secondary problems like freesync issues, stutter, flicker?

Thanks in advance.

(02-17-2020 10:44 PM)RainingTacco Wrote: [ -> ]Hi i have the AOC 24G2U monitor and 5700 XT. While running it at 144hz, the GPU VRAM won't downclock itself. What i found through my research is that the monitor needs higher vertical blanking value, but the problem is if i increase that it will go out of the upper range of horizontal frequency and exceed pixel clock rate[this can be mitigated by decreasing the horizontal blanking] and cause the "out of range" black screen when running 3D app[sometimes it happens immediately if the values are too high]. So my question is -is it safe to increase the monitor max acceptable values for horizontal frequency and pixel clock rate. Right now the monitor is running with 158KHz h.freq and 325MHz pixel clock rate, while the maximal limits are 160KHz for h.freq and 330MHz for pixel clock rate. I would like to increase the first value by 5-10KHz to 170KHz and the second value by 15MHz to 340MHz -this will give me a leeway to increase the v.blanking to 1157[from 1098, that's just 18 blank pixel, extremely small and i can understand why vram is not downcloking]. Will this cause any adverse effects like damage to my monitor or shorten lifespan? If not, would there be any secondary problems like freesync issues, stutter, flicker?

The range limits don't affect what the monitor will accept. Going beyond the stated limits won't damage the monitor, but there's no guarantee the monitor will accept it. If the monitor only goes out of range when running 3D apps, that means it can't handle the timing parameters with FreeSync enabled.

(02-18-2020 04:44 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]The range limits don't affect what the monitor will accept. Going beyond the stated limits won't damage the monitor, but there's no guarantee the monitor will accept it. If the monitor only goes out of range when running 3D apps, that means it can't handle the timing parameters with FreeSync enabled.

So basically making limits higher, and then adjusting to be within said limits is not a solution? Then why option for modifying these limits exist in the first place if they are irrelevant?

Also i see more monitors with 160KHz horizontal freq. max while being 1920x1080 with 144hz. Does that mean they will also suffer from that problem, since they need to have the same low blanking values[only 18-20]? Kind of sucks, because Asus VG259Q[great monitor] has 162KHz limit which is still too small Since quite a lot of monitors have such limits, there must be high number of people affected by this

And since you are monitor guru, can you tell me if these explanations by AMD make sense? They say their GPUs are working as intended and this is not a bug[so basically saying that its my monitor fault...]! Is the blanking value really too low and memory have to run high clocks? As i said, many people must be affected by this with 1080p 144hz monitors,and presumably other monitors with different resolutions with low blanking value.

Do you think its possible to resolve this issue by them if they wanted? Is it even technically possible?

(02-19-2020 12:07 AM)RainingTacco Wrote: [ -> ]So basically making limits higher, and then adjusting to be within said limits is not a solution? Then why option for modifying these limits exist in the first place if they are irrelevant?

CRU is an EDID editor, so it's showing what the monitor reports. CRU didn't originally include editing the range limits until FreeSync came around. AMD uses the vertical range limit to control the FreeSync range with DisplayPort. CRU doesn't include the range limits by default unless it's a DisplayPort FreeSync monitor.

(02-19-2020 12:07 AM)RainingTacco Wrote: [ -> ]Also i see more monitors with 160KHz horizontal freq. max while being 1920x1080 with 144hz. Does that mean they will also suffer from that problem, since they need to have the same low blanking values[only 18-20]? Kind of sucks, because Asus VG259Q[great monitor] has 162KHz limit which is still too small Since quite a lot of monitors have such limits, there must be high number of people affected by this

And since you are monitor guru, can you tell me if these explanations by AMD make sense? They say their GPUs are working as intended and this is not a bug[so basically saying that its my monitor fault...]! Is the blanking value really too low and memory have to run high clocks? As i said, many people must be affected by this with 1080p 144hz monitors,and presumably other monitors with different resolutions with low blanking value.

Do you think its possible to resolve this issue by them if they wanted? Is it even technically possible?

It's not the monitor's fault, but the GPU is working as intended. The issue is a side effect of the way the RAM works. The GPU needs time to retrain the memory when changing clock speeds. This is done during the blanking period because if it was done while the screen is refreshing, you would get a corrupted image. Older AMD/ATI GPUs had issues with the memory clock changing when it shouldn't, causing flickering and corruption issues.

This affects NVIDIA as well. NVIDIA won't clock down at all if the vertical blanking is too low. At least AMD reduces the GPU core clock even if it can't reduce the memory clock.

Hi, I used CRU to remove Extensions block for an NVIDIA graphic and it worked correctly. I have a question would it be possible to delete also on a Linux system?

Enviado desde mi FLA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk

(02-20-2020 04:49 PM)ixaulak Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, I used CRU to remove Extensions block for an NVIDIA graphic and it worked correctly. I have a question would it be possible to delete also on a Linux system?

CRU can export .bin files that you can use to override the EDID: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ker...s_and_EDID

(02-20-2020 08:11 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2020 04:49 PM)ixaulak Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, I used CRU to remove Extensions block for an NVIDIA graphic and it worked correctly. I have a question would it be possible to delete also on a Linux system?

CRU can export .bin files that you can use to override the EDID: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ker...s_and_EDID

Thanks! I try it

---

I can't load the module. I've tried editing /etc/default/grub and also editing xorg.conf but it didn't work for me

I custom res already but when I change res in game,i got black screen how i fix it

Hi.

First of all, thank you ToastyX for the amazing CRU app and pixel clock patchers. I have a couple of questions regarding the use of these in combination, and I think my purposes differ from the vast majority of the people posting on this forum. I've been using the patches and CRU to try to display 1440p 60Hz with older GPUs using a DVI to HDMI converter. Detailed info can be found here: https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=72114

Long story short, most of my GPUs will only do 1080p using the adapter cable, and I think it's because of the 165Mhz pixel clock limitation of SL DVI. Using your patches I've been able to display 1440p with the supported cards I have in my possesion. The thing is that most of the GPUs I need to display 1440p are older that those supported, even though some of them can use drivers supported by the patchers. Most of the supported cards already do 1440p over HDMI or DP, what I need is to be able to do 1440p with DVI-I only cards over an HDMI converter. Is there a reason the limitation can be overcome with a GTX 400 series card o an HD 5000 series card and not a GTX 295 or HD 3870 X2 that use the same drivers?

I've spent countless hours for weeks trying to find a solution to this, and right now I think my best chance is a combination of your software. As I said, there's detailed information about my testing and problem in the Vogons link I provided earlier. Thank you very much for your time, I hope I can at least learn what's preventing me from achieving my goal in cards that support digital resolutions greater than 1440p.

Regards

(02-21-2020 11:00 PM)wacha Wrote: [ -> ]Hi.

First of all, thank you ToastyX for the amazing CRU app and pixel clock patchers. I have a couple of questions regarding the use of these in combination, and I think my purposes differ from the vast majority of the people posting on this forum. I've been using the patches and CRU to try to display 1440p 60Hz with older GPUs using a DVI to HDMI converter. Detailed info can be found here: https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=72114

Long story short, most of my GPUs will only do 1080p using the adapter cable, and I think it's because of the 165Mhz pixel clock limitation of SL DVI. Using your patches I've been able to display 1440p with the supported cards I have in my possesion. The thing is that most of the GPUs I need to display 1440p are older that those supported, even though some of them can use drivers supported by the patchers. Most of the supported cards already do 1440p over HDMI or DP, what I need is to be able to do 1440p with DVI-I only cards over an HDMI converter. Is there a reason the limitation can be overcome with a GTX 400 series card o an HD 5000 series card and not a GTX 295 or HD 3870 X2 that use the same drivers?

I've spent countless hours for weeks trying to find a solution to this, and right now I think my best chance is a combination of your software. As I said, there's detailed information about my testing and problem in the Vogons link I provided earlier. Thank you very much for your time, I hope I can at least learn what's preventing me from achieving my goal in cards that support digital resolutions greater than 1440p.

If you're trying this with a DVI-I port that supports DVI dual link then it makes sense that it won't support greater than 165 MHz for single link because that's where it switches to dual link mode. Are there some GPUs that support single link greater than 165 MHz from a DVI dual link port? I think you found some examples.

DVI-I ports that don't support DVI dual link may support single link up to 340 MHz (HDMI 1.4). This is the case wth Intel motherboards using Intel GPUs that have DVI-I ports that are actually just using the DisplayPort dual mode of the iGPU.

To convert DVI dual link to HDMI single link, there's the Gefen Dual Link DVI to Mini DP Converter (expensive). You also need to add a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter.

Many DVI dual link adapters are actually just single link so you have to be careful there.