Glenwing

Intel graphics drivers limit 1080p monitors to 120 Hz over HDMI

Intel graphics drivers limit 1080p monitors to 120 Hz over HDMI

Intel graphics drivers limit 1080p monitors to 120 Hz over HDMI

HDMI 2.0 doesn't support 1440p 240 Hz, you need to use DisplayPort or get a graphics card with HDMI 2.1.

Of course, being uncertified doesn't tell you anything either way, that's the point. You don't know what you are going to get.
 
Using version numbers in the first place is what has led to so much confusion and fake products in the industry.

Right, so you were able to determine the product is not certified.
 
It's no different than any other certification. Of course any product can put a fake UL logo or fake whatever and claim they are certified. But without control of the 1st party database website they won't fool consumers who do their due diligence and check. But who will check? No one, because people don't know the database exists. So what needs to be done is educating people about how to find genuine products, not just "buy something that says version 2.1 on it". VESA needs to make a lot of usability improvements to their database too, but that's not something we can control.

Retailers may type "DP 2.1" in the product description, but there is no such classification system for cables. Anyone can label any cable with any "version number" as it has no meaning.
 
There are a few cables that have passed DP40 and DP80 testing, but none of those are them.

If it's a limitation internal to the GPU then most likely there is some pixel rate limit, not a flat bit rate limit.

It's a pixel rate limitation (i.e. before the compression is applied), the final transmission bit rate is not the issue.

If it's a limitation internal to the GPU then most likely there is some pixel rate limit, not a flat bit rate limit.

This is true. USB 3.2 Gen 1 also has the same issue, where it too uses 8b/10b encoding, thus reducing the effective transfer rate to 500 MB/s. The newer USB 3.2 Gen 2 uses 128b/132b encoding, which gives it a theoretical max of around 1200 MB/s. This is actually what the difference is between USB 3.2 Gen 2 and USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 - the latter using the less efficient encoding scheme, yet both are labeled as "10 Gbps" despite 1x2 being almost 20% slower.
 
This might be the reason the OP isn't seeing around a 1,200 MB/s value for the faster drive - the motherboard port and/or case port might actually be Gen 1x2 and not Gen 2. Since both would be labeled as "10 Gbps."
 
My point is simply that the number on the tin doesn't line up with the numbers you actually see in the real world.

There are no "DSC cables". DSC has no dependency on anything in the cable.

So, I gotta preface this by saying: this is not at all meant to create drama. I really mean this in a constructive manner.
It wasn't your tone, and in fact this is something a lot of people do: I don't think this has to do with your brain working differently than other people.
It's very common, especially in forums, for someone to offer something like that as an advice.
You see it mostly in troubleshooting questions: someone has an issue when performing an action, and there is often someone who says "well don't do that anymore and you won't have that issue". Thanks but the fact I went to the trouble of posting a question on a forum, should already tell you that I don't want to stop performing the action. Nor should I have to stop. Especially when the action does not imply you should have to deal with the issue.
 
My comparison was spot on, if I may say so myself:
Perform an action -> experience issue -> your solution: stop performing action -> the actual solution: something else
Gaming -> suffer back pain -> your solution: stop gaming -> the actual solution: get a better chair
Turn off monitor -> signal goes to TV -> your solution: stop turning off monitor -> the actual solution: connect using another cable, for example

Intel's calculator is based on transmission bit rate, mine calculates the data rate. In addition, they don't account for blanking intervals at all, which is completely wrong. If you set the timing format to "None" on my calculator and then multiply the result by 1.25 you'll get the same number as them, but it doesn't mean anything.
 
For example HDMI 2.0 has a bit rate of 18.0 Gbit/s, but can only transmit 14.4 Gbit/s of data, because only 80% of the transmission carries data, the rest is used for TMDS encoding overhead. So when you calculate how much data your video format will take, you need to make sure it is less than 14.4 Gbit/s (the maximum data rate), that's one approach. The other approach is to multiply the result by 1.25 (to include the overhead) and then make sure it's less than 18.0 Gbit/s (the physical transmission rate). That's what Intel is doing.
 
The only problem is that calculation only works for this specific interface which has 25% overhead. DisplayPort UHBR and HDMI FRL have different amounts of overhead and that calculation is not valid for those interfaces, you would need to recalculate to get another figure specific to each one. That's why it's best to just subtract the overhead and list the maximum data rate for each interface, then you can calculate one number and compare it to any of them.
 
Anyway, Intel doesn't account for blanking intervals anyway so their numbers are entirely meaningless.

DisplayPort cables are not rated 1.1, 1.2, etc.. HBR2 capability that was released around the time of DP1.2 is all that's needed for 1440p 144hz at 8bit. 
 


 
That all being said, most any not-shit quality DP cable can do this today. Try what you have, if it doesn't work buy a new one. 
 
 

Re "HDMI or DP Source to USB Type-C DisplayPort Alternate Mode Display"
 
There have been a few more options popping up:
 
https://www.peakdo.com/Millimeter-wave-accessories?product_id=69 (HDMI, nice)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004158398767.html (HDMI)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004840004372.html (HDMI)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08VDT3YGK (HDMI)
https://www.amazon.com/WJESOG-DisplayPort-Adapter-Converter-Thunderbolt/dp/B0BNX7MS6N/ (DP)
https://store.level1techs.com/products/dp-repeater-hdmi-splitter-6sha9 (DP+USB)

https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?output=USBC
 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?output=USBC
 

Samsung monitors have had scanline issues since all the way back with the CHG70, which is a 1440p 144 Hz monitor and did not use DSC. It's just a Samsung issue.
 
 

I ran your provided screenshot through the DSC reference encoder and I don't see the same artifacts. So I don't think it's caused by DSC, or at least if it is, it's some kind of implementation mistake, not a problem with the algorithm itself.

5-year old thread locked; please don't necro old threads

No, they don't. Check this topic: https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?output=DP
 
For 240 Hz @ 1080p you need a cable certified for HBR2. Sellers may also (incorrectly) advertise this as a DP 1.2 cable.

Sandy Bridge LGA 1155 was PCIe 2.0, but Sandy Bridge-E on LGA 2011 was PCIe 3.0.

It's an 8 bit, non HDR monitor. From looking into it, it looks like it's based off the number of data vs video lanes the usb-c port on your device vs the adapter have allocated towards data vs. video. 
 
Device 1 and Device 2 only support DisplayPort 1.2, while Device 3 supports DisplayPort 1.4.
 
Device 1 and Device 2 can output 4K60Hz using a USB-C to DisplayPort cable because the USB-C to DisplayPort cable uses 4 high-speed lanes for video.
 
The uGreen dongle uses 2 high-speed lanes for video and 2 high-speed lanes for USB 3.x data. With DisplayPort 1.2, the uGreen dongle can only output 4K30Hz. With DisplayPort 1.4, it can output 4K60Hz.
 
For more info, see https://www.bigmessowires.com/2019/05/19/explaining-4k-60hz-video-through-usb-c-hub/
 
 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?output=DP&input=USBC