Monitor Tests Forum

(03-07-2024 12:09 AM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-02-2024 12:56 AM)Dreamic Wrote: [ -> ]Any idea what could be causing this?
4 second clip:
https://i.imgur.com/g1gWFBC.mp4
Horizontal white line flicker on OLED, seemingly only at 360Hz, regardless of HDMI or DP cable or port, VRR on or off. I can find various results of different monitors, TV's, QDOLED, WOLED, Dell/Alienware, LG, MSI, 27", 32", etc of this issue.
No real solutions or explanations, besides lowering refresh rate which isn't much of a solution imo. Also CRU seems to do nothing on this specific display.

That looks like a signal quality problem, but if it's not the cable, then either it's an internal problem with the monitor, a bug in the monitor's firmware, or a bug in the GPU's driver with regard to DSC. If CRU doesn't have any effect, that's a GPU driver bug.

Yea, this is the only display I've had where I can't get CRU working, at all, not a single change is listened to.
I've already amassed a list of like 15 people on Reddit who have commented in various places about having this issue with this monitor, and tagged MSI (even though the issue isn't exclusive to them, from what I've seen).

I've also been encouraging everyone to make a ticket about it, hopefully they can get to the bottom of it. I was wondering if Blurbusters was getting one of these 3660Hz QDOLEDs, as if he was able to replicate the issue he would probably have an easier time getting MSI to listen.

Regarding DSC, they already confirmed they're working on a toggle for upcoming firmware, so we'll see if that changes anything. However, the issue is already only present at 360Hz, not 240Hz (the next highest option), even though DSC is forced on at all refresh rates and resolutions currently.
And when DSC is able to be disabled in new firmware, you still won't be able to run 360Hz 2560x1440 at 10bit without it, even though the monitor does have a proper 48gbps HDMI 2.1.

Blurbusters also suspects firmware issue currently. It's definitely not cable, it could be Nvidia driver or DSC. Or Samsung really screwed something up.

Anyways, I've done about all I can do, with others also brainstorming and trying various things. All that can be done is to get MSI's attention and hope something comes of it, I pray they're able to reproduce it so it's like locked in to being investigated. They'll have an easier time contacting Nvidia, Microsoft, or Samsung if they need to...

(03-07-2024 12:05 AM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-06-2024 09:46 PM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]Hi,
I have a setup with an Intel HD 530 card connected with DVI and an awkward LED matrix screen of 384x128px connected with HDMI.
From my experiments, an extended screen dual-monitor setup always seems to work on the LED matrix screen as a secondary monitor, when the "Active Signal Resolution" is 1920x1080@60Hz but the "Desktop Resolution" is the native resolution of 384x128.
For some time I had it running (!) by creating a Detailed Resolution of 1920x1080 and an extension block with HDMI support and a resolution of 384x128.
For some reason now, I can't repeat that success. Both (Active Signal and Desktop) are always 1920x1080, no matter what I put into the extension block. This drives me mad. Is there any obvious reason why this was once working and not any more? I've tried for hours now and will install Windows 11 anew.
This is extremely frustrating when you know that there is a woking configuration but you're just not able to recreate it.
Does Windows 11 generally interpret the Detailed Resolution as Active Signal Resolution and the resolution in the extension block as the Desktop resolution? How can I control these two resolutions separately from each other?
Would appreciate any help on this, before I consider jumping the window

There's nothing different about resolutions in the extension block. You're talking about GPU scaling. CRU only deals with active signal resolutions, but lower resolutions can be scaled to the first detailed resolution if you enable GPU scaling in Intel's control panel. The problem is Windows doesn't provide a way to set the resolution below 640x480, so assuming the driver allows 384x128, you'll need a third-party program to actually set that resolution. I don't know how you did it before because that was always the case.

Hey, thanks for being so responsive in here!
My observation was clearly that in my extended-dual-monitor setup (with the 384x128 screen being the secondary) some of the resolutions in the "List All Modes" list were different in their Desktop and Signal resolutions. For example 640x480 showed me Desktop=640x480, Signal=1920x1080.
Now always when I had this combo (Signal=1920x1080 and Desktop=lower) the LED screen was showing something meaningful (albeit scaled and therefore squeezed). So my conclusion was (and is) that I somehow have to find a way for that screen to show Signal=1920x1080,Desktop=384x128.
By having CRU detailed resolution of 1920x1080 and an extension block of 384x128 I was then very happy to reliably get this config and the screen was pixel perfect.
So my conclusion was that Windows must be taking the detailed resolution as Active Signal and the extension block resolution as Desktop... or so I thought.

As soon as I tried the LED screen as the sole screen, I literally got bent over by windows and from that moment on it never worked again. Me sitting in the lab for hours trying to recreate this combo.
You are correct that I had to set the Scale to "Stretched" on the secondary screen in the Intel Graphics Command, which weirdly enough does not always show up as an option (sometimes it's just "Maintain Aspect Ratio" and "Custom").

So are you 100% sure that CRU only ever sets Windows "Active Signal Resolution" and not the "Desktop Resolution"? How can that be? Where else should the awkward "Desktop Resolution" of 384x128 come from other than my CRU extension block? And what made the Signal Resolution stay at 1920x1080?

What makes some resolutions (like 640x480) behave like this, keeping full HD Signal while only changing Desktop Resolution?
Sounds mysterious indeed.

The HDMI out of the Intel 530 ends in a Huidu A4 LED controller that controls 2 receiving cards (Huidu R712) that in turn control the LED panels. From POV of Windows, however, it just looks like a normal HDMI monitor.

Forgive me nob question. There is possible to remove 144hz rrate from avaliavle in windows? iI want set 120hz as max.

(03-07-2024 02:53 PM)LaPsiuta Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me nob question. There is possible to remove 144hz rrate from avaliavle in windows? iI want set 120hz as max.

Yes.

(03-07-2024 11:06 AM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]So are you 100% sure that CRU only ever sets Windows "Active Signal Resolution" and not the "Desktop Resolution"? How can that be? Where else should the awkward "Desktop Resolution" of 384x128 come from other than my CRU extension block? And what made the Signal Resolution stay at 1920x1080?

If GPU scaling is enabled, the first detailed resolution is the active resolution, and lower resolutions are desktop resolutions. You can add 384x128 with CRU, but CRU only changes what resolutions are available. You still have to set the resolution in the Windows display settings somehow, but like I said, Windows doesn't provide a way to set resolutions lower than 640x480, so you have to use a third-party program to set the resolution. I know HotKey Resolution Changer can do it, but it doesn't support multiple monitors, so I'm not sure what it will do in your case. I checked EnTech's MultiRes, but it wouldn't list anything below 640x480.

(03-07-2024 03:37 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024 11:06 AM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]So are you 100% sure that CRU only ever sets Windows "Active Signal Resolution" and not the "Desktop Resolution"? How can that be? Where else should the awkward "Desktop Resolution" of 384x128 come from other than my CRU extension block? And what made the Signal Resolution stay at 1920x1080?

If GPU scaling is enabled, the first detailed resolution is the active resolution, and lower resolutions are desktop resolutions. You can add 384x128 with CRU, but CRU only changes what resolutions are available. You still have to set the resolution in the Windows display settings somehow, but like I said, Windows doesn't provide a way to set resolutions lower than 640x480, so you have to use a third-party program to set the resolution. I know HotKey Resolution Changer can do it, but it doesn't support multiple monitors, so I'm not sure what it will do in your case. I checked EnTech's MultiRes, but it wouldn't list anything below 640x480.

When you say "GPU scaling enabled", how is this done for Intel HD 530? Do you mean that the "Stretch" option in the Intel Graphics Command Center (Display->Scale->Stretch)?

So interpreting your comment, in order to get what I need (Signal:1920x1080,Desktop:384x128) I would have to create a single Detailed Resolution of 1920x1080 and then (without extension block) simply a second Detailed Resolution of 384x128?
If I am then able to somehow set that 384x128 resolution, then it would use that only for Desktop and keep the full HD resolution for Signal?

Before I got to the point of playing with extension blocks, I did set the 384x128 resolution as the first detailed resolution, and many times (not always) it did show up in the Windows Display Settings. So it is somehow possible that lower (than 640x480) resolutions show up there. I feel that is not fully reliable, though, and I don't understand when.

(03-07-2024 03:37 PM)ToastyX Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-07-2024 02:53 PM)LaPsiuta Wrote: [ -> ]Forgive me nob question. There is possible to remove 144hz rrate from avaliavle in windows? iI want set 120hz as max.

Yes.

how? i don't know how to do this. can u please explain me like for not advanced user?

(03-07-2024 04:16 PM)LaPsiuta Wrote: [ -> ]how? i don't know how to do this

Just delete the refresh rates you don't want.

(03-07-2024 04:11 PM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]When you say "GPU scaling enabled", how is this done for Intel HD 530? Do you mean that the "Stretch" option in the Intel Graphics Command Center (Display->Scale->Stretch)?

I don't know what options Intel has because they keep changing the control panel and I don't use Intel GPUs. As long as it's not display scaling, it should work.

(03-07-2024 04:11 PM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]So interpreting your comment, in order to get what I need (Signal:1920x1080,Desktop:384x128) I would have to create a single Detailed Resolution of 1920x1080 and then (without extension block) simply a second Detailed Resolution of 384x128?
If I am then able to somehow set that 384x128 resolution, then it would use that only for Desktop and keep the full HD resolution for Signal?

Yes. Also the pixel clock might need to be at least 25 MHz for the resolution to be available with DVI or HDMI, but I don't know if Intel enforces that. NVIDIA and AMD do, so you would have to change the totals to something higher like 800x525. The totals won't affect the actual resolution, and the numbers won't matter with GPU scaling.

(03-07-2024 04:11 PM)leissler Wrote: [ -> ]Before I got to the point of playing with extension blocks, I did set the 384x128 resolution as the first detailed resolution, and many times (not always) it did show up in the Windows Display Settings. So it is somehow possible that lower (than 640x480) resolutions show up there. I feel that is not fully reliable, though, and I don't understand when.

Windows will list the resolution if it's the native resolution, but then GPU scaling won't work correctly. That would only work if the display itself can handle 384x128.

Is there a formula for determining the required vertical blanking / maximum bandwidth to keep memory clocks down (amd)?

1920x1080@144 freesync, CVT-RB/CVT-RB2 sets vblanking at 77 lines.
2560x1440@60, CVT-RB sets vblanking at 41 lines. Setting this to 77 allows clocks to come down. This monitor does not like CVT-RB2.

I have a third monitor, 1920x1080@60, that I'm also trying to drive off the gpu. Tried setting it to CVT-RB2 with vblanking at 77 lines, but no luck. Currently have it hooked up via displaylink adapter.

Thanks