Custom Resolution Utility (CRU)

[falkentyne]

(09-08-2015 06:36 PM)ToastyX Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 07:23 AM)falkentyne Wrote:  Does anyone know what Displayport version *reference* R9 290x cards use? Reviews keep mentioning DP 1.2, but the AMD driver won't allow any pixel clock higher than 480 MHz! The refresh rate or resolution is not even available if its 481 mhz. This seems to imply DP 1.1a....DP 1.2 should exceed 600 mhz...

The pixel clock limit depends on the number of lanes and the DisplayPort clock speed. You need a DisplayPort 1.2 monitor to get DisplayPort 1.2 speeds.

DisplayPort 1.1 max: 4 lanes @ 270 MHz = 360 MHz (8 bpc), 480 MHz (6 bpc)
DisplayPort 1.2 max: 4 lanes @ 540 MHz = 720 MHz (8 bpc), 960 MHz (6 bpc)

(09-06-2015 02:27 PM)falkentyne Wrote:  Reduced porch and sync to 48/1 and 32/1
HT 2656. VT 1500.
Swimming pixels at 120hz
(ALMOST) Works correctly at 115hz. (pixel clock 458.15 MHz)
Image is almost clean but theres's random pixels flickering, very rarely. took me a very long while to notice it, as it was barely happening.

Is this a DP cable limitation? (I'm using an Accel 3 meter DP cable).
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098HVZBE/?tag=mtests-20#ad

That's a scaler limitation. I've seen that on several monitors. Sometimes the same timing parameters will work with DVI but not with DisplayPort.

Ah thank you ToastyX. That's quite interesting.

Had no idea my monitor was only DP 1.1, but quite logical since its a 1080p display. But it's 6 bit+Hi-FRC instead of true 8 bit (even though the AMD drivers let you select 8 bit to emulate it), so I get the full 480 mhz.

Looks like someone's trying to turn lemons into lemonade by cost cutting something..

BTW I also had fun with a 2560x1080 resolution, but that got really annoying to look at after awhile. I guess this is completely pointless without a true 21:9 ultrawide monitor. (Call of duty BO2 looked identical with no differences at all at 1920x1080 and 2560x1080).

BTW, a bit off topic, and sort of a rant, but in a thread over at blurbusters, we found out that Vertical total tweaks don't work to improve blur reduction at all on the XL2730Z, even though the service menu extended info actually shows the vertical total value increasing, it doesn't seem to do anything for strobe crosstalk whatsoever, while our previous Z series seem to calculate the strobe phase pulses based on the VT instead of the physical vertical resolution. Looks like when they changed from Mstar (our fun scaler) to Realtek, the realtek's scaler handles strobe crosstalk based on the physical resolution The strobe crosstalk on a VT 1500 XL2720Z is very low, while on a VT 1500 2560x1440 XL2720Z is identical to 1920x1080 without a VT tweak (the service menu scaler reports 1280x1440 for both resolutions (edit: to clarify, any resolution with a ~1500 vertical total gets reported as 1280x1440, no idea what's up with that bizarre horizontal value though!), so this is fully expected), but this is identical to XL2730Z's default crosstalk, which is just too high


I wish someone with an older T/TE series (NOT XL2430T) Benq could test if these same VT Tweaks (and the 2560x1440 resolution thing over displayport, although it worked over DVI too with patcher) can test if this worked on those monitors too. Because if it does, it means we got REAL lucky with blur reduction and VT on our original Z series... REAL lucky.