Possible w/DP1.4?: 5160x2160 (Ultrawide), 10bit, HDR, 144hz

Berek

Regular
Assuming a monitor manufacturer uses the latest connection technologies (DP 1.4 basically), does anyone know enough about video bandwidths to conclude if the following together is possible in a monitor:
  • 5160x2160 (Ultrawide rough equivalent of what is normally considered '4K' or more properly 'UHD')
  • 10bit color depth
  • HDR (either Sony or another standard)
  • 144hz (100hz minimum with the above)
  • Quantum Dot (I don't think this alone has anything to do with bandwidth, but throwing it in here to emphasis where I'm going with my requirements on my next monitor purchase)
I have a Samsung CF791 Ultrawide monitor and loving it, but I wish at times it had the above, especially the resolution. I consider the above the current ultimate monitor configuration. It seems like we're getting very very close to this threshold too, even if it may be ridiculously expensive to purchase.

*Assuming non-compressed feed through the cable... unless that doesn't really matter here. I've seen lists denoting resolutions and what's capable for certain cable technologies, and some suggest higher FPS but use "compression" of some kind.
 
Does this help

DisplayPort version 1.4 was published March 1, 2016.No new transmission modes are defined, so HBR3 (32.4 Gbit/s) as introduced in version 1.3 still remains as the highest available mode. DisplayPort 1.4 adds support for Display Stream Compression 1.2 (DSC), Forward Error Correction, extension defined in CTA-861.3, the Rec. 2020 color space, and extends the maximum number of inline audio channels to 32.

DSC is a "visually lossless" encoding technique with up to 3:1 compression ratio.Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates, DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680×4320) at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR, or 4K UHD (3840×2160) at 120 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR. 4K at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR can be achieved without the need for DSC. On displays which do not support DSC, the maximum limits are unchanged from DisplayPort 1.3 (4K 120 Hz, 5K 60 Hz, 8K 30 Hz)
 
Does this help

DisplayPort version 1.4 was published March 1, 2016.No new transmission modes are defined, so HBR3 (32.4 Gbit/s) as introduced in version 1.3 still remains as the highest available mode. DisplayPort 1.4 adds support for Display Stream Compression 1.2 (DSC), Forward Error Correction, extension defined in CTA-861.3, the Rec. 2020 color space, and extends the maximum number of inline audio channels to 32.

DSC is a "visually lossless" encoding technique with up to 3:1 compression ratio.Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates, DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680×4320) at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR, or 4K UHD (3840×2160) at 120 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR. 4K at 60 Hz with 10-bit color and HDR can be achieved without the need for DSC. On displays which do not support DSC, the maximum limits are unchanged from DisplayPort 1.3 (4K 120 Hz, 5K 60 Hz, 8K 30 Hz)

Thanks! This does provide theoretically the right information, but there's gaps. See, I'm trying to figure out the bandwidth needed for a resolution and screen size that doesn't really exist yet. So I have to compare the resolution of say 7680x4320, downsize that, and then figure out the pixel count, double it for say 120hz from 60hz for comparison, and hope that I'm doing it right.

I 'think' it will work with compression, but not without... so unless someone else can help me with the math here on what I originally posted, my next question would be:

Does "Display Stream Compression" (DSC) cause problems for computer monitors such that manufacturers don't normally take it into account, or is it just fine and maybe the monitor I'm using now in fact has it enabled?
 
I don't think anyone has tested DSC (compression) to date as it is new with dp 1.4. You'll need compression to achieve what you want though since even 3840x2160 tops out at 96hz @ 10-bit (HDR) with dp 1.3/1.4. I believe HDMI 2.1 has the bandwidth to achieve your goal uncompressed, but that's still a little ways off.
 
If the display has 2 tcons (most early 4k monitors did dont know if theyve moved to 1)
it could be done because the monitor will act like 2 displays and the gfx card will treat it like an eyefinity/nvsurround group
 
The reason there's a DP 1.4 version at all might be that the DSC was delayed, not implemented in a product yet especially in displays.

BTW I looked at the aspect ratios and so in descending resolution order
5160x2160 : 2.3888888...
5120x2160 : 2.37037...
3840x1600 : 2.4
3440x1440 : 2.3888888...
2560x1080 : 2.37037...

Ergo there is a bit of sillyness, yet fitting as cinema movies don't exactly agree either (unless that has changed when going all digital)


I think I would simply like a large 2048x1152 monitor with all four possible input connectors behind it :
- 60Hz on VGA does work! (even higher if the input allows it)
- 60Hz on single link DVI, 60Hz on old HDMI (if something I plug in is stuck at 1920x1080 I don't care, 1080p video upscaled to 1152p ought to be fine)
- 120Hz on dual link DVI
- on DP 1.2, 144Hz and maybe 10bit HDR though I don't know if I'd care for it
- this res used to exist and a nice boost over full HD, takes two 1024-wide window side by side which is a nice start and would allow I to pretend my screen is wide.

This would be great for a lower budget I think and allows for an old/low end PC on the side (say you want a linux box and windows box both running), plugging a random laptop in, raspberry pi etc.

On another note a 3840x1600 ultrawide might be very decent for high end as you can show exactly three 1280-wide windows side by side etc., I'm not sure if something even bigger is desirable either if keeping it a "low ppi" display.
 
Last edited:
Unexpectedly I found out there exist a couple 5120x2160 TVs, they're of the absolutely huge showroom piece kind and supposedly sell for ~$100K (they might as well sell unicorns)

And so I found this little table of refresh rates vs interfaces, although I don't know if that data is that reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution#Display_Interface_and_Graphics_Card_Support

But considering what we know already that seems ok. What's good is with ultrawide 5K, you should be able to run at 60Hz with 10 bit without DSC. You'd have to use DSC for 100Hz refresh or higher. I could see switching between one mode and the other with a click or hotkey if you want to care about DSC off for picture editing, publishing etc.
 
Last edited:
Unexpectedly I found out there exist a couple 5120x2160 TVs, they're of the absolutely huge showroom piece kind and supposedly sell for ~$100K (they might as well sell unicorns)

And so I found this little table of refresh rates vs interfaces, although I don't know if that data is that reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5K_resolution#Display_Interface_and_Graphics_Card_Support

But considering what we know already that seems ok. What's good is with ultrawide 5K, you should be able to run at 60Hz with 10 bit without DSC. You'd have to use DSC for 100Hz refresh or higher. I could see switching between one mode and the other with a click or hotkey if you want to care about DSC off for picture editing, publishing etc.

This is great, thanks for the link! Looks like it confirms what I suspected... compressed mode will do it, but otherwise it's bust. And if that's the case, I'm doubting 21:9 monitors of this sort, good ones, are 2+ years away then. I could hopefully be wrong, but it feels that way, even with the push to get everything to 4Kish res.

I'm beginning to wonder if 4K 32" is what I should be focusing on... even if it's not quite the same wide angle.
 
There's also 4096x2160 monitors, 1920x1920 monitor - not HDR but well, would make for quite a secondary. Funny stuff but luxury prices and rare.
 
There's also 4096x2160 monitors, 1920x1920 monitor - not HDR but well, would make for quite a secondary. Funny stuff but luxury prices and rare.

Without the vertical 2160 changing, this sounds like it's a near 16:9 (16:10) aspect ratio, which is a normal 4K, not Ultrawide. That's where I was going with my last comment above, I'm wondering if a 32" 4K is 'good enough' for visual field, both wide and tall.
 
Bumping this only because watching the "linus tech tips" video showcasing the 8K Dell on a nearby thread.

It comes with dual cables, and with a twist. Yank out one of the cables, display goes blank for a short while then syncs back at 30Hz instead of 60Hz. That's what I'll call unexpected robustness, like Windows recovering from a GPU driver crash or changing GPU driver on the fly. I've seen that work with no hairballs.

So I think on really high end, dual cable may be likely (funnily high end consumer anything seems to gravitate around $1K and this is where I can speculate it to be [eventually, the 5K wide things]. Like, if there's a $20 cost to this maybe they can afford it)
Many options for "fallback" if you run a single cable or HDMI then.
 
Last edited:
bump. That monitor is 6 years old, I wonder if the author still has it.

I've switched to a "native" ultrawide resolution on a native 4K 50" TV. As I explained in a different thread, the TV (native 3840x2160) has a 21:9 non native mode -2560x1080-, so the vertical res is "native" -two huge black bars at the top and the bottom, but it's okay since 1080p is native- but at 2560 horizontal, the image looks a bit blurry.

The TV also has a "native" 32:9 mode (3840x1080). again with black bars. The vertical resolution works fine 'cos it's contained in a native 1080p viewport with big black bars. Been using this mode for a couple of days after reading a post of @gamervivek on the advantages of using ultrawide resolutions. So these are the advantages and disadvantages I find using this resolution.

ADVANTAGES
- Your vision is more centered since we humans have a naturally wider horizontal fov.
- On games that use ultrawide resolutions properly the fov gain is superb!
- 120cm of a horizontal frame is excellent for productivity. I was using two low power consumption 32" displays before at 1080p (one is native 1440p but I set it to 1080p for perfect transitions between extended displays). Now I don't need that anymore and I am not missing out.
- Given the TV has those 21:9 and 32:9 modes working like any other native resolution, when you set the TV to 32:9 Windows 11 thinks that 3840x1080 is the recommended resolution. This means no side effects of custom resolutions.

NOR HERE NOR THERE
- The black bars are quite big above and below the centered 1080p viewport, so this might considered a disadvantage. However, this is an advantage imho 'cos:

  • human vision has wider horizontal fov than vertical fov, which means that the image looks more centered.
  • those black bars have the advantage of saving a lot of energy. This is one big ass TV. A 120cm horizontal screen occupies my entire desk -also 120cm wide- from side to side.
  • the black bars save a lot of energy. Until now I was playing on my 1080p TV from 2013 'cos it is very efficient -40W max power consumption-, it has very nice image quality and for my GPU 1080p is a breeze, and with XeSS enables it rests on its laurels. The 4K TV I am using now is not as efficient, but with half of the screen being totally black it doesn't use as much energy.
DISADVANTAGES

- 3840x1080 is more demanding than playing at native 1080p.

- Quite a few games don't support ultrawide resolutions, and those games render in a 1080p native viewport within that 3840x1080 which makes them look more like they are being played in a 4:3 "square".

imho, the advantages very much outweigh the disadvantages and it was a nice discovery
 
Last edited:
after using my TV screen in Ultrawide format, my next and future monitor/display (4/5 years?) is going to be Ultrawide, that I am sure of. 32:9 Ultrawide is glorious for productivity. You combine everything in a single screen like if they were two screens. Allows for the simplest setup, 1 computer 1 monitor.

That being said, if you are only going to use the monitor exclusively for gaming, 32:9 is still an excellent option but some games look too stretched to the sides and aren't very 32:9 friendly. In that case you could go with either a 21:9 or a 16:9 screen, or like in my case with a screen or TV that while not being ultrawide native, has a built-in ultrawide setting that works really well so it supports 16:9, 21:9 and 32:9. I use 32:9 for everything, but still....
 
the Samsung G9 OLED looks like a very nice ultrawide monitor. Top display is a 21:9 ultrawide Philips 345B1C (34", 3440x1440p), the one at the bottom is the G9 (49", 32:9, 5120x1440 Resolution, OLED, 240Hz Refresh Rate).


zgjbiqbyy6ob1.jpg
 
Last edited:
32:9 Ultrawide is really a thing in F1 22, a sight to behold. Specially in cockpit view or any view near the cockpit. It's really good. It's not only the additional fov, but also the sense of speed increases.



This is how cockpit view looks at 4K, 1440p, 1080p... (16:9), normally, for comparison.

 
after using my TV screen in Ultrawide format, my next and future monitor/display (4/5 years?) is going to be Ultrawide, that I am sure of. 32:9 Ultrawide is glorious for productivity. You combine everything in a single screen like if they were two screens. Allows for the simplest setup, 1 computer 1 monitor.

That being said, if you are only going to use the monitor exclusively for gaming, 32:9 is still an excellent option but some games look too stretched to the sides and aren't very 32:9 friendly. In that case you could go with either a 21:9 or a 16:9 screen, or like in my case with a screen or TV that while not being ultrawide native, has a built-in ultrawide setting that works really well so it supports 16:9, 21:9 and 32:9. I use 32:9 for everything, but still....

Yeah, 32:9 is too wide, though 21:9 is not wide enough. 24-26:9 would be quite good. In my old eyefinity setup, the bezels were great for the stretched objects at the side, since they allowed me to focus on the middle ultrawide screen and not see the stretched objects at the side.


Would love to return to the setup with 2160p monitors.

 
@at Gamervivek I used to run at 5292x1050 (roughly 51:10) but that was across 3 monitors with eyefinity 2xdvi and 1 display port (with an active dp to dvi adapter because I didnt have a dp monitor and the card only had 2 dvi outputs) also I believe 1 monitor had to be connected via the displayport (not required by nvidia)
 
Yeah, 32:9 is too wide, though 21:9 is not wide enough. 24-26:9 would be quite good. In my old eyefinity setup, the bezels were great for the stretched objects at the side, since they allowed me to focus on the middle ultrawide screen and not see the stretched objects at the side.


Would love to return to the setup with 2160p monitors.

gosh! The 53:9 image is really impressive. However, I only see it practical -productivity aside, which would be amazing with it- if you play at a distance of 2 meters (almost 7 feet) or more. 32:9 is being really good for me, 'cos I use a 50" TV and I play and work at a distance of 120cm (4 foot aprox), and the whole fov fits really well in my frontal/peripheral vision, everything is centered.

Btw, 32:9 in Rocket League works superb! It has been a triumph with my 6 y.o. and 4 y.o. nephews. They've put like 45 hours in the game over time (I don't play Rocket League) and they are loving the extra horizontal fov. They play better now. The pictures don't make the game justice, but I thought that 540 pixels vertical in split screen would be too low and it isn't. It plays like a charm.

ay4pARF.jpg


Vdh9eMF.jpg


That thing to the left of the table is my nephew's foot.
 
Back
Top