Eigenvektor

HBR3 maximum data rate is 25.92 Gbit/s, which is a physical bit rate of 32.4 Gbit/s.
 
Requirement for 2560×1440 at 240 Hz 10 bpc is 30.77 Gbit/s data rate, which becomes 38.46 Gbit/s bit rate in HBR3 transmission. So it would be outside the limit.
 
But you are comparing the data rate requirement of one against the bit rate limit of the other, which is incorrect 🙂
 
If the monitor only supports HBR3, then either it uses DSC, or does not allow 240 Hz and 10 bpc simultaneously. In either case only HBR3 rated cable is needed, anyway.

Could've potentially been a very recent card at a time the open source driver didn't support it yet.

From what I'm able to find the cable should be able to do 32.4 Gbps (which would be HBR3).
 
1440p, 10 bpc, 240 Hz requires 30.77 Gbps, so the cable should be up for it. Maybe it was defective or the specs are plain wrong, but yeah you'll need a cable that supports HBR3 (cables are not versioned, they are rated by the maximum bandwidth they support, even if the version is often used for marketing purposes)

They need to contact Google support, there's nothing anyone of us can do about that.

They need to contact Google support, there's nothing anyone of us can do about that.

Yeah, with 50k followers, they should be talking to YT

They need to contact Google support, there's nothing anyone of us can do about that.

Shouldn't they be asking Youtube?

When did that happen and on what distro lol?

Actually they can, however not all boards allow it and in some instances it can even prevent other hardware from functioning correctly. In the event that Microsoft keys are revoked in the process it can also brick some boards. For Secure Boot to be effective, the Bios needs to be password protected and the boot options need to be restricted. Security is already questionable on most systems anyways since it's the same key re-used for each install whether it be for Microsoft Windows or the widely accepted Microsoft Signed Bootloader Shim used by mainstream linux distros.
 
In a proper implementation it would be generated per system and installed, however it leaves a lot of room for error throughout the entire lifecycle of the system.

Yeah, it'll work. The only thing that might happen is depending on your specific motherboard's auto rules, set the CAS latency to 20 instead of 19 because AMD setups generally don't like odd CAS latency values for reasons I won't get into. 

It's the CPU's integrated memory controller that needs to recognize it, the board just provides the physical connection between RAM and CPU. Anything above 2666 MT/s generally requires XMP to be enabled in the BIOS.
 
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B450M-DS3H-rev-1x/sp#sp
According to their specs, they support 3600 MT/s

Yes, should be possible. I've got an R9 5900X with DDR4 running at 3600 MT/s, CL16.

Yes, should be possible. I've got an R9 5900X with DDR4 running at 3600 MT/s, CL16.

Ports on the gpu DO NOT EQUAL allowed max outputs. Consumer cards right now are limited to 4 screens on a card.
 
Only workstation cards will do but whats your budget because those are NOT CHEAP

As the others have said, the concept of ray tracing has been around for a long time. Movies have used it for special effects, or for entire movies for decades. However, ray tracing is very compute intensive, which is why it can't really be done on a CPU if you want to achieve playable frame rates. For example for Toy Story 3 it took an average of 7 hours to render a single frame. Just as graphics cards have accelerated raster graphics for ages, they are now doing the same thing for ray tracing.
 
Games like Descent (1994) and Quake (1996) already used 3D raster graphics. However, you could only play them at low resolutions—e.g. 320 x 200—because CPUs simply weren't fast enough to run them at a sufficient frame rate (~30 fps) otherwise. That's were GPUs came in: they provided hardware acceleration for things like texturing, allowing for much higher resolutions and frame rates. You could suddenly play these games at 640 x 480 @ 60 fps, while also using much better looking textures.
 
These "fake RT" shaders are doing one of two things: they are either using raster algorithms that emulate ray tracing as much as possible, or are doing ray tracing at much lower resolution and/or precision. Just like games back in 199x had to compromise on a lot of things to achieve 30 fps, these shaders have to compromise to achieve good enough performance. The use of RT cores simply means you can now do the same thing at much higher speeds, while also using higher output resolution while using algorithms that are more precise.

Stop thinking about it as "fake vs. real", but hardware accelerated vs. software. 
 
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-hardware-and-software-accelerated-ray-tracing/
 
If you use the RT cores Nvidia has been packing into their cards as an example:
 
 

You know there are buttons to increase the size of the video or even go fullscreen? Check the buttons in the lower right hand corner of the video. You can also simply close that chat window.
 
Before
 
Theater mode
 

Persevere a little and follow tutorials.
 
All media codecs already include any gains that could be attained by lossless compression. You technically can zip a video but you'll gain nothing, sometime you can even lose some.

You know there are buttons to increase the size of the video or even go fullscreen? Check the buttons in the lower right hand corner of the video. You can also simply close that chat window.
 
Before
 
Theater mode
 

You know there are buttons to increase the size of the video or even go fullscreen? Check the buttons in the lower right hand corner of the video. You can also simply close that chat window.
 
Before
 
Theater mode
 

Minecraft Java uses OpenGL for rendering, and AMD's OpenGL support on Windows has historically been... not good.  Given that the devs states they test on a AMD+Linux config, give that a try, as the AMD OpenGL drivers on Linux are much, MUCH better in both speed and conformance.

I doubt anyone can tell you without more information.
Which specific shader(s) cause the issue? What does the issue look like? (Maybe provide a screenshot) Could be an issue with the GPU, but could also simply be a bug with the particular shader. Is it the RX 580 4 GB or 8 GB? If the shaders are more demanding, could potentially be an issue of too little VRAM.

That and transparancies can often break when multiple light sources or reflections of light meet when faking ray traced shadows.
 
This just looks like a random bug and may just be specific to users with similar hardware or settings or ... plenty other things where you just have just the right combination of stuff to trigger it and it may just be uncommon.

I would assume that's it. Objects close to a light source can often cause glitches in lighting systems, because shadows get really large