(02-24-2020 10:06 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]I recently upgraded from a GTX 770 to a GTX 1080 Ti. My monitor has been running at 110hz using the LCD Reduced setting in CRU for years, without any artifacting or other issues. After swapping the cards out I uninstalled my Nvidia drivers in safe mode, reinstalled them normally, used the Pixel Clock Patcher, added my resolutions to CRU, then restarted. However when I boot up Windows I get these weird artifacts which never happened with my GTX 770.
https://streamable.com/5vxcf
https://streamable.com/sk3rb
Sometimes it happens immediately when it goes to the lock screen, sometimes it happens when I press anything to get to the password entry screen. After that it doesn't seem to do it while browsing the desktop, watching videos or playing games. Again this is at 110hz, I seem to be having no issues anywhere at 60hz. Did I miss something or enter something incorrectly on CRU? Nothing has changed with my monitor, so I'm guessing it is either a software issue or the GPU itself (though not sure what exactly would be the issue if its the GPU).
That looks like the memory clock is changing when it shouldn't. Try raising the vertical blanking/total and see if that makes it stop.
(02-22-2020 01:32 PM)wacha Wrote: [ -> ]All the DVI-I ports I'm testing should be DL as the GPUs support greater than 1440p digital resolutions, and they only have DVI-I as output. There is one special case that really baffles me. I have three GTX 295s. Whenever I try to install the drivers, they all default to 1440p using the adapter cable, but only one of them is able to give a display. The Gigabyte single-PCB GTX 295 works out of the box, 1440p 60Hz crisp image. The other two won't be able to display anything and I get a "no signal" message. So, my only way to even use one of those two cards is to first install the drivers on the Gigabyte, downgrade to 1080p or less, shutdown, and swap the cards. One of them is a Gainward dual-PCB model so I can understand that there might be hardware differences between the two. The other one is a ZOTAC single-PCB model, exactly identical as far as I can tell. The have the same BIOS version, same PCB layout (even the markings and numbering are the same), same driver version, same monitor, same DVI to HDMI cable, same OS, motherboard and other components. Yet one displays 1440p perfectly and the other just gives up when presented with a greater than 165 MHz pixel clock, it doesn't even default to 1080p like most of my other GPUs.
I also tried deleting the extension block. It showed HDMI 2.0. Then renamed the patcher and applied the patch. It gave me the same results. GTX 295s show a "no signal" image, any other card will show 1440p but with a blurry image and barely unreadable text. I might have done something wrong here, I don't know. I opened up CRU, deleted the only entry in the bottommost box and saved. Then I applied the renamed patch and rebooted.
I know I'm trying to use this software in unintended ways, and that my needs are very specific. I just want to understand why it doesn't work. I can live with it if it's simply not possible, or overly expensive, but the lack of consistency in the behaviour is driving me nuts. So far, these are the results of my testing:
-Gigabyte GTX 295: works out of the box.
-Seemingly identical 295 and dual-PCB: "no signal", nothing works past 165 MHz pixel-clock
-HD 7990: defaults to 1080p, 165 MHz limit. Works with the patcher.
-GTX 590: defaults to 1080p, works with CVT-Reduced blank at 1440p. Patcher fixes it and works with any custom 1440p res.
-GTX 780Ti: works out of the box.
-HD 3870X2: defaults to 1080p, 165 MHz limit. Patcher doesn't work.
-X1950 XTX: same as 3870
Thank you for your time.
The behavior will depend on whether it's treated as DVI or HDMI.
Newer cards will output an HDMI signal over DVI ports if HDMI support is defined in the extension block. Older cards might only output DVI no matter what.
If it's treated as DVI, you will get a blurry image beyond 165 MHz pixel clock because that's where it switches to a dual-link signal, but HDMI is single-link, so you lose half the pixels. Renaming the patcher to whatever-patcher-single.exe will make it always send a single-link signal, but that might not work with older cards.
If it's treated as HDMI, AMD/ATI cards will output an HDMI signal over DVI ports, but only up to 165 MHz pixel clock unless the driver is patched. With the HD 7990, you shouldn't need the patch if you plug the monitor directly into an HDMI port.
NVIDIA cards will output an HDMI signal over DVI without the 165 MHz limitation, but keep in mind older cards might not have the hardware to handle higher pixel clocks because old versions of HDMI only supported up to 165 MHz. The one GTX 295 probably has a better TMDS transmitter that is capable of higher pixel clocks.
(02-25-2020 05:40 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2020 10:06 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]I recently upgraded from a GTX 770 to a GTX 1080 Ti. My monitor has been running at 110hz using the LCD Reduced setting in CRU for years, without any artifacting or other issues. After swapping the cards out I uninstalled my Nvidia drivers in safe mode, reinstalled them normally, used the Pixel Clock Patcher, added my resolutions to CRU, then restarted. However when I boot up Windows I get these weird artifacts which never happened with my GTX 770.
https://streamable.com/5vxcf
https://streamable.com/sk3rb
Sometimes it happens immediately when it goes to the lock screen, sometimes it happens when I press anything to get to the password entry screen. After that it doesn't seem to do it while browsing the desktop, watching videos or playing games. Again this is at 110hz, I seem to be having no issues anywhere at 60hz. Did I miss something or enter something incorrectly on CRU? Nothing has changed with my monitor, so I'm guessing it is either a software issue or the GPU itself (though not sure what exactly would be the issue if its the GPU).
That looks like the memory clock is changing when it shouldn't. Try raising the vertical blanking/total and see if that makes it stop.
Just to confirm so I don't accidentally mess something up, you mean keep increasing
this 6 number by one until it stops? Do I touch that 144 number at all?
I just don't understand why the same settings in CRU on the same monitor are giving me a problem now when they didn't before. Can the same settings behave differently based on what GPU you're using? Thanks.
(02-25-2020 06:15 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Just to confirm so I don't accidentally mess something up, you mean keep increasing this 6 number by one until it stops? Do I touch that 144 number at all?
I just don't understand why the same settings in CRU on the same monitor are giving me a problem now when they didn't before. Can the same settings behave differently based on what GPU you're using? Thanks.
Yes, increase the vertical only. The memory clock is not supposed to change if the vertical blanking is too low, but it looks like it's changing anyway for some reason, most likely a driver bug. This is not an issue with the monitor.
(02-25-2020 07:20 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2020 06:15 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Just to confirm so I don't accidentally mess something up, you mean keep increasing this 6 number by one until it stops? Do I touch that 144 number at all?
I just don't understand why the same settings in CRU on the same monitor are giving me a problem now when they didn't before. Can the same settings behave differently based on what GPU you're using? Thanks.
Yes, increase the vertical only. The memory clock is not supposed to change if the vertical blanking is too low, but it looks like it's changing anyway for some reason, most likely a driver bug. This is not an issue with the monitor.
Before I saw this reply, I tried deleting my resolutions in CRU and
recreating them Nvidia Control Panel using the CVT reduced blank setting. I don't seem to be having the artficating issue with this custom resolution, but the pixel clock is about 23Mhz higher than the one I had in CRU.
Since you mentioned memory clock, I forgot to mention that when I use CRU's 110hz custom resolution my GPU stays at
much higher clockspeeds when idling. This resolution I made in Nvidia Control Panel seems to keep the GPU at
idle clocks, though with this resolution every time after rebooting my computer it flickers between the two clocks for a bit before finally settling on the idle one. Both CRU and Nvidia Control Panel's 96hz custom resolution that I made doesn't seem to do this.
Do you recommend I try to get this working correctly in CRU for the lower pixel clock, or should I leave it with Nvidia Control Panel as is?
(02-25-2020 08:05 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Before I saw this reply, I tried deleting my resolutions in CRU and recreating them Nvidia Control Panel using the CVT reduced blank setting. I don't seem to be having the artficating issue with this custom resolution, but the pixel clock is about 23Mhz higher than the one I had in CRU.
Since you mentioned memory clock, I forgot to mention that when I use CRU's 110hz custom resolution my GPU stays at much higher clockspeeds when idling. This resolution I made in Nvidia Control Panel seems to keep the GPU at idle clocks, though with this resolution every time after rebooting my computer it flickers between the two clocks for a bit before finally settling on the idle one. Both CRU and Nvidia Control Panel's 96hz custom resolution that I made doesn't seem to do this.
Do you recommend I try to get this working correctly in CRU for the lower pixel clock, or should I leave it with Nvidia Control Panel as is?
"LCD standard" will give you the same timing parameters as CVT reduced blank. That should allow the memory clock to change without artifacts. You can try for a lower pixel clock, but it's not necessary if you're not having any problems.
(02-25-2020 09:54 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2020 08:05 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Before I saw this reply, I tried deleting my resolutions in CRU and recreating them Nvidia Control Panel using the CVT reduced blank setting. I don't seem to be having the artficating issue with this custom resolution, but the pixel clock is about 23Mhz higher than the one I had in CRU.
Since you mentioned memory clock, I forgot to mention that when I use CRU's 110hz custom resolution my GPU stays at much higher clockspeeds when idling. This resolution I made in Nvidia Control Panel seems to keep the GPU at idle clocks, though with this resolution every time after rebooting my computer it flickers between the two clocks for a bit before finally settling on the idle one. Both CRU and Nvidia Control Panel's 96hz custom resolution that I made doesn't seem to do this.
Do you recommend I try to get this working correctly in CRU for the lower pixel clock, or should I leave it with Nvidia Control Panel as is?
"LCD standard" will give you the same timing parameters as CVT reduced blank. That should allow the memory clock to change without artifacts. You can try for a lower pixel clock, but it's not necessary if you're not having any problems.
Thanks. I'm just trying to maximize the lifespan of the monitor as much as I can while retaining this overclock. Does a higher pixel clock result in more wear, or does that happen only when using a higher overclocked refresh rate?
(02-25-2020 10:12 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. I'm just trying to maximize the lifespan of the monitor as much as I can while retaining this overclock. Does a higher pixel clock result in more wear, or does that happen only when using a higher overclocked refresh rate?
It might, but it's hard to know. You should be able to reduce the vertical blanking/total some while still allowing the memory clock to change.
(02-25-2020 10:22 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ] (02-25-2020 10:12 PM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. I'm just trying to maximize the lifespan of the monitor as much as I can while retaining this overclock. Does a higher pixel clock result in more wear, or does that happen only when using a higher overclocked refresh rate?
It might, but it's hard to know. You should be able to reduce the vertical blanking/total some while still allowing the memory clock to change.
Thanks for confirming. Yeah I think it's better to keep the pixel clock as low as possible since my monitor has been overclocked for almost seven years, so I went back and kept increasing my vertical blanking by one and restarted until the lines stopped. These are the results I got for
110hz and
120hz. Do those look okay? And will I notice any difference with my display between these settings and the settings from LCD standard?
(02-26-2020 12:54 AM)apav Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for confirming. Yeah I think it's better to keep the pixel clock as low as possible since my monitor has been overclocked for almost seven years, so I wen't back and kept increasing my vertical blanking by one and restarted until the lines stopped. These are the results I got for 110hz and 120hz. Do those look okay? And will I notice any difference with my display between these settings and the settings from LCD standard?
That's fine. There shouldn't be any visible difference.