Your DisplayPort 2.1 monitor and graphics card may support UHBR20, but that doesn't mean you're getting it. Here's how a seemingly harmless cable choice can change everything.
Your DisplayPort 2.1 Monitor Might Not Be Running DisplayPort 2.1
Your DisplayPort 2.1 Monitor Might Not Be Running DisplayPort 2.1
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Burty117
Posts: 6,000 +5,093
I see 4k@360Hz are arriving towards the end of this year / early next year, that will require DSC even at UHBR20 speeds anyway.
The only downside of having a 4090 from what I understand is that is does suffer from the old display engine issues and 4k@240Hz can be a bit dodgy, (black screens, dropouts, refresh rate dropping down etc...) which makes me wonder, will DP1.4 with DSC on any card older than the 50 series be able to push 4k@360Hz?
The only downside of having a 4090 from what I understand is that is does suffer from the old display engine issues and 4k@240Hz can be a bit dodgy, (black screens, dropouts, refresh rate dropping down etc...) which makes me wonder, will DP1.4 with DSC on any card older than the 50 series be able to push 4k@360Hz?
yRaz
Posts: 9,374 +16,525
My eyes can't really see anything past 120/144, but maybe I'm just getting old. I want 8k120 to be a thing because I like playing on a large display (65"4k TV). I want an 8k120 projector because I want to go larger, but the DPI is really low.
Burty117
Posts: 6,000 +5,093
Oh I can definitely tell the difference between 240Hz and 360Hz, granted, it's no where near as much of a jump from 120Hz to 240Hz, but I can feel it, it's more, I'm after a 4k OLED and have been for a while, I'll potentially have money for it early to mid next year and if they're releasing 360Hz models, I'd happily go 360Hz models anyway and limit them to whatever my 4090 will play nicely with, I'm just wondering how far DP1.4 with DSC can actually be pushed on all non 50 series GPU's. Am I really going to be limited by Nvidia's Display Engine on a 4090 to the point I cannot output 4k@360Hz?
yRaz
Posts: 9,374 +16,525
Maybe. To be fair, I think the 4090 can run very few games at 360hz. The display itself, I'm big on latency, probably does more work than the graphics card at that point. I play lots of ESO, EvE and OSRS and I'm mostly CPU limited.
I'm probably just getting old, but I notice latency a lot more than FPS.
Edit: maybe some of us are more sensitive to certain things than others. I don't notice frames as much as I notice latency. So different. I do see 120/144 as the upper limit of what I can see.
Inthenstus
Posts: 328 +445
I assume there is very little to no visual impact here because no side by side images were posted. Appreciate the heads up, but if it isn’t noticeable, what’s the point?
MonicaPython2
Posts: 81 +26
Buying a monitor with DisplayPort 2.1 is still a good idea
brucek
Posts: 2,370 +3,843
Thanks for showing us where to see this in GPU-Z, I never knew where to look to know what bandwidth I was getting before.
And sure enough, I'm one of the suckers who thought I had I set it up right but was in fact getting 4x10 GB. Or maybe I'm a special winner, because it claims my Link Rate (current) is 615098.1 Gbps!
And sure enough, I'm one of the suckers who thought I had I set it up right but was in fact getting 4x10 GB. Or maybe I'm a special winner, because it claims my Link Rate (current) is 615098.1 Gbps!
"We suspect Nvidia does this to avoid situations where users connect a display with an inadequate cable and then encounter reliability issues.".. "Nvidia appears to test the cable behind the scenes and select a configuration that minimizes potential problems."
I suspect it's more than 'minimizing potential problems', but the link training (clock sync, channel equalization, etc.) completely fails at 80gbps and it tries lower speeds until it succeeds. I.e. I suspect the monitor could not recover the clock etc. at all as opposed to it just being a tad flakey now and then.
But *shrug* anyway, good to know! I'd probably just get the cheaper monitor and use DSC... or, you know, just run at 60hz and still not use DSC... but if I were paying extra for displayport 2.1 capabilities I'd certainly rather not have it held back by my monitor cable. Thanks for the info!
--Henry
I suspect it's more than 'minimizing potential problems', but the link training (clock sync, channel equalization, etc.) completely fails at 80gbps and it tries lower speeds until it succeeds. I.e. I suspect the monitor could not recover the clock etc. at all as opposed to it just being a tad flakey now and then.
But *shrug* anyway, good to know! I'd probably just get the cheaper monitor and use DSC... or, you know, just run at 60hz and still not use DSC... but if I were paying extra for displayport 2.1 capabilities I'd certainly rather not have it held back by my monitor cable. Thanks for the info!
--Henry
Burty117
Posts: 6,000 +5,093
On old games though (Half-Life 2 for example) the 4090 easily pushes insane frames, e-sports titles as well, might as well use it if I can.
They kinda go hand-in-hand though:
30fps = 33.33ms frame time
60fps = 16.67ms frame time
360fps = 2.78ms frame time
So latency is naturally better with a higher frame rate, then you need nice smooth frame pacing so you get the better latency consistently, then there's your 1% lows which you don't want dropping frequently or too much below your average frame rate, otherwise it'll feel like your game is stuttering.
I'm actually on your side here, I hate frame generation because it makes latency worse, whilst increasing the frame rate, which just feels wrong, you feel almost drunk, it's buttery smooth, but it's not responding to my inputs anywhere near as quickly as the smoothness suggests it should, I very much dislike it, would prefer better latency than frame smoothness, and the only way to get that is to just have a higher frame rate.
LimyG
Posts: 600 +268
That sounds like a very well made high quality cable.
Curious as to appox price?
thewelshbrummie
Posts: 54 +32
While it's not ideal it's probably better than the old days of trying an unsupported resolution/chroma configuration and getting a blank screen and not signal or unsupported video output issue.
bandit8623
Posts: 853 +524
Its more so a standard problem. allowing different rates on the new standard was stupid. 2.1 should be running at full rate no matter the cable. if its ruunning slower dont name it 2.1
Similar threads
