Fake DVI dual link cable?

[bijay135]

Hello everyone. So I am attempting to overclock my monitor which is Philips 227E3LH. I have a Nvidia GTX 750 and a DVI cable.

So I managed to successfully overclock my monitor to 1080P 75Hz and been using it for years without any problems or frame skipping with single link DVI cable. I can overclock using two ways. First without using the pixel clock patcher using LCD reduced timing at 75Hz which results to 164.6Mhz. Second using the pixel clock patcher and LCD native at 75Hz which results to 185.6Mhz.

So I bought a Dual link DVI cable so I can use native timings at 75Hz without without using the patcher. I am certain dual link DVI has 330Mhz pixel clock limit but this cable I got has same results as single link still cant go over 165Mhz. My monitor and graphics both has Dual Link DVI ports. So, although having 24-pins I suspect it is a fake dual link DVI cable.

Is the Pixel Clock patcher needed to get higher than 165Mhz in a Dual Link DVI cable or mine is surely fake.1080P 75hz at 185Mhz without the patcher possible in real dual link DVI cable? Thanks for reading.

[ToastyX]

That monitor doesn't have dual-link DVI. Use HDMI if you want to go past 165 MHz without the patch. You can also try using CRU to add an HDMI support data block in the extension block to treat DVI as HDMI, which will work with some single-link DVI monitors.

[bijay135]

(09-01-2017 04:52 AM)ToastyX Wrote:  That monitor doesn't have dual-link DVI. Use HDMI if you want to go past 165 MHz without the patch. You can also try using CRU to add an HDMI support data block in the extension block to treat DVI as HDMI, which will work with some single-link DVI monitors.

Thank you for the quick reply and clarifying the issue. The monitor has 24-pins port so I thought it was dual link DVI.

I will just stick to Reduced Timing @ 75hz at 164.6Mhz which is enough for a single link DVI.

One last question. Is there any downside to using Reduced Timings rather than Native Timings? From my tests I see no differences at all, hope it is good enough as I plan to use 75hz both for desktop and games.

[ToastyX]

(09-01-2017 05:42 AM)bijay135 Wrote:  One last question. Is there any downside to using Reduced Timings rather than Native Timings? From my tests I see no differences at all, hope it is good enough as I plan to use 75hz both for desktop and games.

The only downside is the video card might not clock down when idle if the vertical blanking is too low.

[bijay135]

(09-01-2017 07:11 AM)ToastyX Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 05:42 AM)bijay135 Wrote:  One last question. Is there any downside to using Reduced Timings rather than Native Timings? From my tests I see no differences at all, hope it is good enough as I plan to use 75hz both for desktop and games.

The only downside is the video card might not clock down when idle if the vertical blanking is too low.

I just checked using Nvidia Inspector my GPU clock is 1274 Mhz and Memory is 3150 Mhz right now on idle Current Clock are 135 Mhz and 405 Mhz respectively. So, I guess the video card is clocking down properly when idle.

So, I am all set to use the Overclock using LCD reduced timings. Thank you once again.