LG 120hz 1080p 23" monitor *Press Release*

Interesting. Looks like it will ship with 'shutter glasses' type 3d device. Haven't experienced it myself so I'm not sure how well this will catch on. Breakthrough or gimmick?
 
DP 1.2 bandwidth = 21.6 Gb/sec - 4 lanes at 5.4 Gb/sec

Just hypothesizing...

2560x1600@120hz = 11.80 GB/sec - (<--- thanks to evilsofa's informative post) DP is enough, but alas the monitor does not exist...

There are alternatives...

3240x1920@120Hz = 17.92 Gb/sec - x3 LGs, portrait mode, eyefinity. (bandwidth is not a factor here, but a wire from video card to each monitor is required)
1920x1080@120hz = 5.97 Gb/sec - Too much for a single lane on DP 1.2 (5.4 Gb/sec).
1680x1050@120Hz = 5.08 Gb/sec - You can daisy-chain up to four 120hz monitors from one DP coming off your computer put them in portrait mode
3150x1680@120hz = 15.24 Gb/sec - x3 1680x1050 resolution, portrait mode, eyefinity daisy-chained. A very clean one-wire setup.

You just need a monitor that is DP 1.2 compliant. DP 1.2 was supposed to be announced before the end of the year, so hopefully LG takes this into consideration.
 
DisplayPort is not enough. Its limit is 10.80 Gb/s, and 2560x1600@120Hz even with no vertical or horizontal blanking periods and with only 24-bit color would still take 11.80 GB/s, which exceeds DP specifications.

With CVT-RB timings, it would be:
2560x1600 x 24 bpp @ 100 Hz = 10.75 Gb/s
2560x1600 x 24 bpp @ 120 Hz = 12.89 Gb/s
2560x1600 x 30 bpp @ 120 Hz = 16.12 Gb/s

So 2560x1600@100Hz may be possible with DisplayPort, but that would be pushing its bandwidth to the max (and its real-world maximum may be lower).

However, most current video cards are limited to a pixel bandwidth of 400 MHz for both digital and analog (the equivalent of 9.6 Gb/s at 24 bits per pixel), which would mean only 89.3 Hz for 2560x1600.
 
MetaGenie said:
DisplayPort is not enough. Its limit is 10.80 Gb/s, and 2560x1600@120Hz even with no vertical or horizontal blanking periods and with only 24-bit color would still take 11.80 GB/s, which exceeds DP specifications.

With CVT-RB timings, it would be:
2560x1600 x 24 bpp @ 100 Hz = 10.75 Gb/s
2560x1600 x 24 bpp @ 120 Hz = 12.89 Gb/s
2560x1600 x 30 bpp @ 120 Hz = 16.12 Gb/s

So 2560x1600@100Hz may be possible with DisplayPort, but that would be pushing its bandwidth to the max (and its real-world maximum may be lower).

However, most current video cards are limited to a pixel bandwidth of 400 MHz for both digital and analog (the equivalent of 9.6 Gb/s at 24 bits per pixel), which would mean only 89.3 Hz for 2560x1600.
Click to expand...

The 1.2 standard doubles that 10.8Gb/s (2.7Gb/s x4=10.8Gb/s -> 5.4Gb/s x4=21.6Gb/s). Of course 1.2 should have been published at least three months ago and there's been no news of it since March, so who knows if that is even going to happen.
 
MetaGenie said:
So 2560x1600@100Hz may be possible with DisplayPort, but that would be pushing its bandwidth to the max (and its real-world maximum may be lower).

However, most current video cards are limited to a pixel bandwidth of 400 MHz for both digital and analog (the equivalent of 9.6 Gb/s at 24 bits per pixel), which would mean only 89.3 Hz for 2560x1600.
Click to expand...

I'll google the pixel bandwidth, as I'm interested in this. Could you go into further depth on this? I'd like to know how this becomes a factor.
 
Injection of <3 said:
very old gimmick
Click to expand...

Have you seen the 3D nvidia setup? its not a gimmick, it really adds depth to games if you can stand the glasses, here to stay but it will be improved. problem is no gpu could handle anything above 1900X1200 because 3D cuts the fps by up to 60%, so if you are running crysis at 40 fps now and try doing 3D with the same settings you may be around 16-20 fps, now try doing that at a higher resolution on a bigger screen, even with a couple GTX295 it wouldn't be too pretty (remember the nvidia 3D needs nvidia cards).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top