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

Discussion in 'PC Hardware, Software and Displays' started by Berek, Apr 11, 2017.

  1. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
  2. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,899
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    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)
     
    BRiT and Kej like this.
  3. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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?
     
  4. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    242
    Location:
    NY
    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.
     
  5. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  6. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,899
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    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
     
  7. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    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.
     
    #7 Blazkowicz, Apr 11, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2017
  8. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    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.
     
    #8 Blazkowicz, Apr 12, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
    Berek likes this.
  9. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
  10. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    There's also 4096x2160 monitors, 1920x1920 monitor - not HDR but well, would make for quite a secondary. Funny stuff but luxury prices and rare.
     
  11. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
  12. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    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.
     
    #12 Blazkowicz, May 24, 2017
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
    Cyan likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...