Benq XL2411Z - Monitor does not show 144hz after changing cable

Hello, I have a problem of this type that I bought a new card, namely the Radeon RX Vega 64 and it has only HDMI and Display port. I also have a BenQ XL2411Z 144hz monitor, but the only connectors it has are DVI-D and HDMI, although by connecting it to the HDMI input, I can only view the image at 60hz and here is my question. If I buy a DVI-D to DP adapter, will I be able to reach 144hz again or the adapter may be a limiter? What will the situation look like if I buy a DP -> DVI-D cable? I am open to any suggestions.

My friend,

1.Start by using an HDMI cable, due to the lack of (expensive) adapters and a higher color depth than DVI.

2.What type of DVI-D socket do you have built-in? Is it DVI-D DL or SL? This is a big difference in the standard - also in the transfer frequency.

3. I understand that you have set your graphics driver to display frequencies not supported by the monitor, or the monitor drivers are loaded to Win 10?

Buddy, if you want to get 144hz without problems, it's just changing the monitor to one with DP. Adapters are worth nothing, you would have to have active ones, 1 are expensive and 2 are frequency issues, sometimes you can reach 120hz. Of course I am talking about dp to dvi-d dual link.

kk.2000 wrote:

1.Start by using an HDMI cable, due to the lack of (expensive) adapters and a higher color depth than DVI.

Higher color depth? Has a colleague read the specification of both standards? DVI-D to HDMI vias are not too expensive. In fact, you do not even need vias, you can buy the cable itself, no electronics is needed in this case.

kk.2000 wrote:

2.What type of DVI-D socket do you have built-in? Is it DVI-D DL or SL? This is a big difference in the standard - also in the transfer frequency.

There is a Dual Link in this monitor of course, as this monitor supports 144Hz only via the DVI socket. It will not support 144Hz via HDMI and it is even described in the equipment manual (it's strange that the author did not look at it - although who would want to rummage in this unnecessary waste paper) :)

kk.2000 wrote:

3. I understand that you have set your graphics driver to display frequencies not supported by the monitor, or the monitor drivers are loaded to Win 10?

No additional drivers are required for 144Hz support, system PnP is sufficient.

Excerpt from the manual:

Quote:

If 144 Hz is not available in your menus, check the following:
o make sure the DVI-D Dual Link cable is properly connected to your computer and the monitor
o make sure your GPU supports 144 Hz
o make sure your game supports 144 Hz.

I would start by buying a cable HDMI DVI DUAL LINK - after entering such a phrase on Allegro, there are several to choose from. HDMI version 1.3 / 1.4 can theoretically handle 1920x1080 / 144Hz. The cheapest cables for a fifth fall out and these dual link costs somewhere between PLN 20-30. Three-digit cables are not needed, an honest dual link cable should theoretically be enough.

Theoretically, you won't get 144hz on this transition. DVI-D DL MA 25 pin and 5 dates and HDMI 19 and 4 dates. There must be all 5 for DVI to reach 144HZ. I did the same thing at home, I ended up changing monitors.

Here you are right (HDMI has three TMDS channels by spec). It would be possible to look for a DP to DVI-D converter that would fully handle 1920x1080 / 144Hz.

dt1 wrote:

Higher color depth? Has a colleague read the specification of both standards?

Yes, buddy, he read the specification and it shows that DVI has a color space only RGB and HDMI also YCbCr 4: 4: 4.

dt1 wrote:

(it's strange that the author did not look into it - although who would want to rummage in this unnecessary waste paper)

If the author had looked, he would not have asked the question ... ;-)

dt1 wrote:

No additional drivers are required for 144Hz support, system PnP is sufficient.

We know the theory, but in practice we are dealing with Winzgroza 10!
Yes, I am not saying that there is a problem here, but it is worth telling a colleague where to look for problems, or - this is the case - simply raise the topic without an answer.

dt1 wrote:

Three-digit cables are not needed, an honest dual link cable should theoretically be enough.

And with these "cables" it is a great lottery. I've already tested a few and the seller's theories are only half the same as the pest's practice. You are right that you can try - which I didn't think of.

Added after 3 [minutes]:

dt1 wrote:

Higher color depth? Has a colleague read the specification of both standards?

Yes, buddy, he read the specification and it shows that DVI has a color space only RGB and HDMI also YCbCr 4: 4: 4.

dt1 wrote:

(it's strange that the author did not look into it - although who would want to rummage in this unnecessary waste paper)

If the author had looked, he would not have asked the question ... ;-)

dt1 wrote:

No additional drivers are required for 144Hz support, system PnP is sufficient.

We know the theory, but in practice we are dealing with Winzgroza 10!
Yes, I am not saying that there is a problem here, but it is worth telling a colleague where to look for problems, or - this is the case - simply raise the topic without an answer.

dt1 wrote:

Three-digit cables are not needed, an honest dual link cable should theoretically be enough.

And with these "cables" it is a great lottery. I've already tested a few and the seller's theories are only half the same as the pest's practice. You are right that you can try - which I didn't think of. Having my experience, I would not try to look for an adapter with the FHD * 144Hz declaration. It's cheaper than replacing the monitor.

Not even adapters, but an active converter. It all depends on the author, whether he wants to spend senseless money on shipping cables, returns, etc., or he just prefers to bet on a 100% reliable solution that will definitely work, i.e. changing the monitor. I know from my own experience that none of the converters work as we would expect, I had several and none of them reached 144, and it was hard by 120.

kk.2000 wrote:

Yes, buddy, he read the specification and it shows that DVI has a color space only RGB and HDMI also YCbCr 4: 4: 4.

But YCbCr 4: 4: 4 and 4: 2: 2, which can achieve 12 or 16 bit depths, are not used in PC graphics cards, and 10 bit depths handle both standards equally well. PC graphics cards typically use 8bit / channel, some cards may use 10bit. For AMD cards:

Quote:

AMD's 10-bit Display Support
AMD's most recent series of workstation graphics cards give full support to various types of 10-bit displays including all of the models mentioned above. The communication interface can currently be single link DVI, dual link DVI, and DisplayPort depending on the input / output ports configuration of the monitor and the graphics card.

HDMI hasn't even been mentioned, so I'm not sure if it's possible to get more than the standard 8bit / channel with HDMI (but that would be a limitation on the graphics card, not the standard).

Anyway, it does not matter much, because the matrices in cheap consumer monitors will not be able to display differences greater than 8 bit / channel, and usually even 6bit / channel. Therefore, I was wondering which specifications my colleague was reading - only standards (which in the case of PCs support both 10 bit), matrices or graphics processors, because each of these elements will introduce a different limit ;)

It is a pity that the author chose a 144Hz monitor without Display Port - in my opinion this is a mistake, but the purchase has already been made. HDMI itself in the graphics card is version 2.0, so it would support 144Hz, but apparently in the monitor it is already a standard version below 1.3, because in principle from version 1.3 it was possible to theoretically support 1080p / 144Hz.

dt1 wrote:

But YCbCr 4: 4: 4 and 4: 2: 2, which can be 12 or 16 bits deep, are not used on PC graphics cards ...

It's interesting what you write, because I'm using 4: 4: 4.
This is due to the best gradation of shades that I am allergic to when viewing photos.

The colleague did not write that this was his last monitor in his life, so before he changed it, I recommended him to find a solution via HDMI, clearly justifying my suggestion. I myself use the highest possible color depth, because maybe the LED matrix itself cannot reproduce too much, but the processing electronics probably can, since I can see the difference.

This is the last post to defend my suggestion ;-)

PS. dt1: your comments are very valuable! I appreciate the electrode for a large number of professionals in the subject.

When it comes to HDMI cables, I have already tried different variants. When it comes to people who recommend buying a new monitor, I would like to note that on average I am smiling to change the monitor for PLN 1400 for a new one and I would really care more about some other cheaper solution =)

This is what the discussion forum is all about - to exchange views without insults at the same time I am also eager to learn something new all the time.

For my part, it was a simplification - this format is not the most commonly used, because there is usually no need to do so, taking into account that LCD matrices typically use 6, sometimes 8-bit depth of the displayed image. I have encountered 10 bit in some medical and professional monitors only, so the 4: 4: 4 compression in theory should not have any advantage over the other formats that offer the depth that allows you to take full advantage of the possibilities used in the matrix monitor (it is known that sending information about the image in the format distinguishing between 16 bits on each component makes little sense if the matrix is able to display 262k colors, which is 6bits / channel).

Which does not change the fact that the viewing experience may be different, I do not know the details of the exact impact of the compression standard used on the displayed image

dt1 wrote:

... I do not know the details of the exact influence of the compression standard used on the displayed image

My guess is that you wrote so.

Apart from the fact that the matrix itself will display 8 bits, take into account that it does not display full black and full white.
I recommend 4: 4: 4 when someone wants to enjoy their photos on the big screen. Natural photos always have some tonal transitions. In order for the gradation boundaries not to be arrogant or even visible, we need to choose the highest possible depth. Fortunately, many graphics cards can display more than RGB.

By the way, I think that the introduction of higher depths than 8 bit - i.e. a change in the standard in HDMI - is caused not so much by the desire to increase the processing power of procks and file sizes, but by the requirements of the recipients of the format.

I know for most people there is no difference between a 128kbs MP3 and a CD, but there are also quite a few people who clearly hear the difference and most young people feel it.

I searched the net and found an active adapter that will handle 144hz on this transition, it's called Dell BizLink. Personally, I did not have it and did not test it, but due to the fact that it is a branded adapter, it should work. After entering the first link in the search, the price is about PLN 150 plus shipping. The choice is yours.

It turned out that this model of the monitor is slightly "neutered" and 144Hz can only be achieved by connecting DVI-D at both ends.

Trying to deal with the problem, a friend suggested to try an "active adapter", ie DP + USB (power) ---> DVI-D and a cable on both ends with DVI-D.

DisplayPort to DVI-D Dual Link Adapter

DisplayPor...dapter.png Download (163.25 kB)

After connecting, to my surprise, the monitor options showed a higher value, i.e. 120 / 144Hz, but a strange flashing bar, a few mm on the right side of the monitor did not look good and after turning on any program a black screen appeared and blinked.

So, not entirely convinced about the "magic" adapter , I kept looking and it turned out that the monitor drivers were missing, after installing the problem disappeared and maybe this entry will help someone :spoko:

greetings :wink:

... update , because it turns out that it works stably at 120Hz and 144Hz is the native value and after some time I have artifacts on the screen ... hmm, but 2x more damage is also no yes