Custom Resolution Utility (CRU)

[ToastyX]

(09-06-2015 08:39 PM)cosmicamnesia Wrote:  Let me just start by saying that I'm new to this kind of thing and messing with PCs in general, so I apologize for what may seem to be a lack of knowledge at any point. Anyways, I am running a Digital Storm Behemoth laptop with two 8GB GTX 980m's in SLI, 32GB RAM, i7 4980MQ, etc. and a newly purchased Acer XG270HU 1440p 144Hz monitor, which I am connected to through a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter (I'm just using this while I wait for my single MDP to DP cord) and both the adapter and cord are rated for up to 4K.
Now, when I was using only the HDMI cable I was able (for brief periods of time) to run my monitor at it's full resolution with no real problems for the first day, but it soon started to become very unstable with games, giving 'NO SIGNAL FOUND' black screens nearly every time I attempted to launch a game or messed with settings. So I ordered a MDP to DP cable which is still not here, and in the mean time I grabbed the above mentioned MDP to HDMI adapter, which is much much much more stable, but will not at all let me go beyond 1080p at 60Hz, even after trying your 5 step process with CRU and also adding the HDMI patch you linked.
I'm pretty positive I'm just not using the utility right, but I can't find any sort of 'beginner walkthrough' for fools like me. Any advice? I'm hoping that when my cord arrives it will fix my issues, but it would be nice to have a better grasp on the situation in any case.

2560x1440 @ 120+ Hz requires DisplayPort 1.2, dual-link DVI (with the pixel clock patch), or HDMI 2.0 (if the monitor and video card can handle that). Do not use adapters. DisplayPort to HDMI is not likely to support HDMI 2.0.

Blackouts usually indicate a signal-quality problem. You need a high-quality cable for that kind of bandwidth. I would avoid using HDMI because HDMI 2.0 is still relatively new and may not be well-supported. DisplayPort is the best option.

[falkentyne]

(09-08-2015 06:36 PM)ToastyX Wrote:  

(09-07-2015 07:23 AM)falkentyne Wrote:  Does anyone know what Displayport version *reference* R9 290x cards use? Reviews keep mentioning DP 1.2, but the AMD driver won't allow any pixel clock higher than 480 MHz! The refresh rate or resolution is not even available if its 481 mhz. This seems to imply DP 1.1a....DP 1.2 should exceed 600 mhz...

The pixel clock limit depends on the number of lanes and the DisplayPort clock speed. You need a DisplayPort 1.2 monitor to get DisplayPort 1.2 speeds.

DisplayPort 1.1 max: 4 lanes @ 270 MHz = 360 MHz (8 bpc), 480 MHz (6 bpc)
DisplayPort 1.2 max: 4 lanes @ 540 MHz = 720 MHz (8 bpc), 960 MHz (6 bpc)

(09-06-2015 02:27 PM)falkentyne Wrote:  Reduced porch and sync to 48/1 and 32/1
HT 2656. VT 1500.
Swimming pixels at 120hz
(ALMOST) Works correctly at 115hz. (pixel clock 458.15 MHz)
Image is almost clean but theres's random pixels flickering, very rarely. took me a very long while to notice it, as it was barely happening.

Is this a DP cable limitation? (I'm using an Accel 3 meter DP cable).
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098HVZBE/?tag=mtests-20#ad

That's a scaler limitation. I've seen that on several monitors. Sometimes the same timing parameters will work with DVI but not with DisplayPort.

Ah thank you ToastyX. That's quite interesting.

Had no idea my monitor was only DP 1.1, but quite logical since its a 1080p display. But it's 6 bit+Hi-FRC instead of true 8 bit (even though the AMD drivers let you select 8 bit to emulate it), so I get the full 480 mhz.

Looks like someone's trying to turn lemons into lemonade by cost cutting something..

BTW I also had fun with a 2560x1080 resolution, but that got really annoying to look at after awhile. I guess this is completely pointless without a true 21:9 ultrawide monitor. (Call of duty BO2 looked identical with no differences at all at 1920x1080 and 2560x1080).

BTW, a bit off topic, and sort of a rant, but in a thread over at blurbusters, we found out that Vertical total tweaks don't work to improve blur reduction at all on the XL2730Z, even though the service menu extended info actually shows the vertical total value increasing, it doesn't seem to do anything for strobe crosstalk whatsoever, while our previous Z series seem to calculate the strobe phase pulses based on the VT instead of the physical vertical resolution. Looks like when they changed from Mstar (our fun scaler) to Realtek, the realtek's scaler handles strobe crosstalk based on the physical resolution The strobe crosstalk on a VT 1500 XL2720Z is very low, while on a VT 1500 2560x1440 XL2720Z is identical to 1920x1080 without a VT tweak (the service menu scaler reports 1280x1440 for both resolutions (edit: to clarify, any resolution with a ~1500 vertical total gets reported as 1280x1440, no idea what's up with that bizarre horizontal value though!), so this is fully expected), but this is identical to XL2730Z's default crosstalk, which is just too high


I wish someone with an older T/TE series (NOT XL2430T) Benq could test if these same VT Tweaks (and the 2560x1440 resolution thing over displayport, although it worked over DVI too with patcher) can test if this worked on those monitors too. Because if it does, it means we got REAL lucky with blur reduction and VT on our original Z series... REAL lucky.

[cosmicamnesia]

(09-08-2015 06:58 PM)ToastyX Wrote:  

(09-06-2015 08:39 PM)cosmicamnesia Wrote:  Let me just start by saying that I'm new to this kind of thing and messing with PCs in general, so I apologize for what may seem to be a lack of knowledge at any point. Anyways, I am running a Digital Storm Behemoth laptop with two 8GB GTX 980m's in SLI, 32GB RAM, i7 4980MQ, etc. and a newly purchased Acer XG270HU 1440p 144Hz monitor, which I am connected to through a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter (I'm just using this while I wait for my single MDP to DP cord) and both the adapter and cord are rated for up to 4K.
Now, when I was using only the HDMI cable I was able (for brief periods of time) to run my monitor at it's full resolution with no real problems for the first day, but it soon started to become very unstable with games, giving 'NO SIGNAL FOUND' black screens nearly every time I attempted to launch a game or messed with settings. So I ordered a MDP to DP cable which is still not here, and in the mean time I grabbed the above mentioned MDP to HDMI adapter, which is much much much more stable, but will not at all let me go beyond 1080p at 60Hz, even after trying your 5 step process with CRU and also adding the HDMI patch you linked.
I'm pretty positive I'm just not using the utility right, but I can't find any sort of 'beginner walkthrough' for fools like me. Any advice? I'm hoping that when my cord arrives it will fix my issues, but it would be nice to have a better grasp on the situation in any case.

2560x1440 @ 120+ Hz requires DisplayPort 1.2, dual-link DVI (with the pixel clock patch), or HDMI 2.0 (if the monitor and video card can handle that). Do not use adapters. DisplayPort to HDMI is not likely to support HDMI 2.0.

Blackouts usually indicate a signal-quality problem. You need a high-quality cable for that kind of bandwidth. I would avoid using HDMI because HDMI 2.0 is still relatively new and may not be well-supported. DisplayPort is the best option.

So a new day, a new monitor, and new problems. Hooray. I got sick of the issues being presented to me by the XG270HU and exchanged it for an ROG Swift. Which DOES support G Sync through DP, however I only have a Mini DP on my system, which as far as I've researched SHOULD work. From my PC I'm running a single MDP male to DP male cable into the monitor and getting no signal as of right now. The driver disc is saying that it cannot find any hardware to apply the drivers to, but shouldn't the screen still be displaying something despite that? any help is appreciated.

[zaczac]

Looks like Intel might be finally fixing custom resolutions after all..

https://communities.intel.com/message/322049

If you scroll down you can see Intel responding and actually acknowledging it as a bug

"We were able to replicate this and a bug record is being filed today. Issue will then progress to the debug queue. I'll update bug record # when it's available and circle back with updates as they come. Thanks!"

Looks promising

Would this maybe allow CRU to work with intel chips now or will be stuck with the intel tools still?

[ToastyX]

(09-16-2015 06:27 AM)zaczac Wrote:  Looks like Intel might be finally fixing custom resolutions after all..

https://communities.intel.com/message/322049

If you scroll down you can see Intel responding and actually acknowledging it as a bug

"We were able to replicate this and a bug record is being filed today. Issue will then progress to the debug queue. I'll update bug record # when it's available and circle back with updates as they come. Thanks!"

Looks promising

Would this maybe allow CRU to work with intel chips now or will be stuck with the intel tools still?

I don't see anything about EDID overrides. They're talking about Intel's control panel.

[falkentyne]

(09-16-2015 04:41 PM)ToastyX Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 06:27 AM)zaczac Wrote:  Looks like Intel might be finally fixing custom resolutions after all..

https://communities.intel.com/message/322049

If you scroll down you can see Intel responding and actually acknowledging it as a bug

"We were able to replicate this and a bug record is being filed today. Issue will then progress to the debug queue. I'll update bug record # when it's available and circle back with updates as they come. Thanks!"

Looks promising

Would this maybe allow CRU to work with intel chips now or will be stuck with the intel tools still?

I don't see anything about EDID overrides. They're talking about Intel's control panel.

Yeah looks like a software bug they're fixing.

[falkentyne]

ToastyX:
is there a technical reason why video cards don't downclock the memory (or sometimes the core) from load speeds, when the Vertical Total is lower than the default? Is this a hardware limitation or by design?

At 100hz (Default VT=1133) even going as low as 1125 (-8) keeps the video memory running at full load speed (290X).

[zaczac]

Yes it is a software bug, but to be clear custom resolutions have never worked on IVY or haswell for laptops (possibly desktops too) that is what they are fixing, the ability to add custom resolutions and refresh rates etc via the control panel. Would that not mean that they are adding in edid overrides via their own software?

[herkow]

Hi evereyone. First of all, ToastyX: thank you very very much for this software. I almost grab an axe to "fix" my monitor before using this app.

ATI Radeon HD 3650

The original issue was that at 1920x1080 59 Hz the text (and mouse pointer) was blurry in some places, not all the screen. I've solved this before by changing the refresh frequency on other systems and monitors. But here, no way...
So, CRU brougth me back to life, and I couldn't believe my luck when I saw every letter perfectly defined. But happines won't last forever. After reboot, the image got blurry again.
Anyway, I've been trying several frequencies, over 59Hz (the monitor recognizes 59, 60, and 61 Hz as 60Hz.) at 1920x1080 res., and it works perfectly, but when I reboot, or power off, the image becomes blurry again. If I run restart64.exe, everything looks perfect again.

That happens wiht Microsoft's driver, AMD driver, and Clock pixel patcher.

The monitor is kinda shitty, generic chinese crap, but was the only with 1920x1080 resolution support at the time of purchase.

Strange thing: when I use 60Hz with no CRU resolution, the screen shows clear, but smaller, like 1366x768 or so.

Here is my system config. Any ideas?

OS: Windows 10 pro 64.

GPU:

Code:

Graphics Processor Properties    
Video Adapter    VisionTek Radeon HD 3650
BIOS Version    010.077.000.000.000000
BIOS Date    26/2/2008
GPU Code Name    RV635 XT
Part Number    113-BXXXX
PCI Device    1002-9598 / 1545-3994  (Rev 00)
Transistors    378 million
Process Technology    55 nm
Bus Type    PCI Express 2.0 x16 @ 1.1 x16
Memory Size    1 GB
GPU Clock    110 MHz  (original: 725 MHz)
RAMDAC Clock    400 MHz
Pixel Pipelines    4
Texture Mapping Units    8
Unified Shaders    120  (v4.1)
DirectX Hardware Support    DirectX v10.1
PowerControl    0%
WDDM Version    WDDM 1.1
    
Memory Bus Properties    
Bus Type    DDR2
Bus Width    128-bit
Real Clock    405 MHz (DDR)  (original: 405 MHz)
Effective Clock    810 MHz
Bandwidth    12.7 GB/s
    
Architecture    
Architecture    ATI VLIW5
Compute Units (CU)    3
SIMD Per Compute Unit    1
SIMD Width    8
SIMD Instruction Width    5
    
Theoretical Peak Performance    
Pixel Fillrate    440 MPixel/s @ 110 MHz
Texel Fillrate    880 MTexel/s @ 110 MHz
Single-Precision FLOPS    26.4 GFLOPS @ 110 MHz
24-bit Integer IOPS    5.3 GIOPS @ 110 MHz
32-bit Integer IOPS    5.3 GIOPS @ 110 MHz
    
Utilization    
GPU    0%
Dedicated Memory    146 MB
Dynamic Memory    33 MB
    
ATI PowerPlay (BIOS)    
State #1    GPU: 725 MHz, Memory: 405 MHz  (Boot)
State #2    GPU: 725 MHz, Memory: 405 MHz  (OverDrive)
State #3    GPU: 725 MHz, Memory: 405 MHz
State #4    GPU: 600 MHz, Memory: 405 MHz  (UVD)
    
Graphics Processor Manufacturer    
Company Name    Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Product Information    http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop
Driver Download    http://sites.amd.com/us/game/downloads
Driver Update    http://www.aida64.com/driver-updates

Monitor:

Code:

Field    Value
Monitor Properties    
Monitor Name    Monitor PnP genérico [NoDB]
Monitor ID    SKY0001
Model    TV-monitor
Manufacture Date    Week 24 / 2014
Serial Number    242416843009
Max. Visible Display Size    885 mm x 498 mm (40.0") EDIT: this is not true, the screen is 24".
Picture Aspect Ratio    16:9
Horizontal Frequency    15 - 80 kHz
Vertical Frequency    49 - 76 Hz
Maximum Pixel Clock    140 MHz
Gamma    2.20
DPMS Mode Support    None
    
Supported Video Modes    
640 x 480    60 Hz
640 x 480    67 Hz
640 x 480    72 Hz
640 x 480    75 Hz
720 x 400    70 Hz
800 x 600    56 Hz
800 x 600    60 Hz
800 x 600    72 Hz
800 x 600    75 Hz
832 x 624    75 Hz
1024 x 768    60 Hz
1024 x 768    72 Hz
1024 x 768    75 Hz
1280 x 800    60 Hz
1280 x 1024    60 Hz
1280 x 1024    75 Hz
1360 x 765    60 Hz
1360 x 768    Pixel Clock: 85.50 MHz
1920 x 1080    60 Hz
1920 x 1080    Pixel Clock: 148.50 MHz

[DustyShinigami]

Hi

First forum post. I'm having problems adding my own custom refresh rates with the Custom Resolution Utility. With my last monitor it worked no problem, but I got a new one today - a BenQ XL2420G - and no matter what I do, whenever I check my monitor's list of refresh rates, the ones I added never show up. I'm trying to add 70 and 80Hz refresh rates.