Are RTX 50 series gpus going to have the new display connector standards?

[rippy4500]

With new displays coming out like the LG 32GS95UE that have a "dual hz" feature where you can run it at 4K 240hz or 1080p 480hz, I think asus is coming out with one soon that has the same feature and specs. Now the issue of RTX 40 series cards not having up to date connector standards is actually a problem since neither its DP or HDMI ports can output 4K 240Hz.

 

So im kinda hoping the 50 series will have the connectors that can run this display at full refresh rate in either mode. I expect them to have it but knowing nvidia theres probably a chance they will mess this up and give us the old connectors.

 

This is the first display ive seen in a while that im actually excited about, since it would replace my current dual monitor setup with a separate high refresh rate and high resolution monitor that I have to switch between depending on if I want high refresh rate or high quality. So id be able to have a smaller/cleaner looking setup.

[Blue4130]

4 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

With new displays coming out like the LG 32GS95UE that have a "dual hz" feature where you can run it at 4K 240hz or 1080p 480hz, I think asus is coming out with one soon that has the same feature and specs. Now the issue of RTX 40 series cards not having up to date connector standards is actually a problem since neither its DP or HDMI ports can output 4K 240Hz.

 

So im kinda hoping the 50 series will have the connectors that can run this display at full refresh rate in either mode. I expect them to have it but knowing nvidia theres probably a chance they will mess this up and give us the old connectors.

 

This is the first display ive seen in a while that im actually excited about, since it would replace my current dual monitor setup with a separate high refresh rate and high resolution monitor that I have to switch between depending on if I want high refresh rate or high quality. So id be able to have a smaller/cleaner looking setup.

The monitors are not out yet, so the 40series HAVE the up to date connector. They don't have a future tech. And since the 50 series isn't even announced yet, no one can answer your question.

[rippy4500]

Just now, Blue4130 said:

The monitors are not out yet, so the 40series HAVE the up to date connector. They don't have a future tech. And since the 50 series isn't even announced yet, no one can answer your question.

I know that, but they were revealed at ces so they're probably coming at some point in the near future.
40 series does not have dp 2.0 which is required to output true 4K 240hz, it can only do 4K 120 over dp 1.4, and 4K 144hz from the HDMI 2.1 port. AMD cards do have this connector though and can output it, im hoping nvidia will catch up and put dp 2.0 on their 50 series cards, and if not ill probably switch to amd next gen just so I can use these displays.

[Levent]

10 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

LG 32GS95UE that have a "dual hz" feature where you can run it at 4K 240hz or 1080p 480h

Its a VESA thing they are adapting.

 

12 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

Now the issue of RTX 40 series cards not having up to date connector standards is actually a problem since neither its DP or HDMI ports can output 4K 240Hz.

 

They cant? I am pretty sure RTX4090 can do 4K240 with DSC.

[rippy4500]

5 minutes ago, Levent said:

Its a VESA thing they are adapting.

Its just branding though right? It doesnt require any additional feature support?

7 minutes ago, Levent said:

with DSC.

Thats the issue. Some are fine with DSC but I really want to avoid it if I can.

[8tg]

I bought an A770 so I am prepared for 16k/60hz HDR or 4k 240hz with DisplayPort 2.0 while nvidia for some reason stuck with 1.4a in (current year)

I would almost say there’s no way nvidia wouldn’t release cards with DisplayPort 2.0 simply because a card like the A770 has it? But they also made the 8gb 4060 so I wouldn’t entirely omit them from doing 1.4a again anyway.

[starsmine]

DP 2.0 came out at an awkward time and nvidia did not want to rush to validate it on ada when there was no use case for it on the market. I see no reason to expect it to not be on blackwell as there is no awkward release timing of it. 

[8tg]

28 minutes ago, starsmine said:

DP 2.0 came out at an awkward time and nvidia did not want to rush to validate it on ada when there was no use case for it on the market. I see no reason to expect it to not be on blackwell as there is no awkward release timing of it. 

DP 2.0 was released from VESA in mid 2019, and both ada and alchemist came out at the same time.

 

[rippy4500]

3 minutes ago, 8tg said:

DP 2.0 was released from VESA in mid 2019, and both ada and alchemist came out at the same time.

 

Maybe nvidia just didnt see the need for it at the time, they did the same thing with vram. They do the bare minimum for some things and it makes their cards hold up worse in the long term.

Im legitimately going to be angry if the 5090 does not have DP 2.0. Theres no reason for it to not have it.

[porina]

I'm only guessing, but possible reasons why Nvidia didn't go DP2.x may include: there are practically no displays using it. The early ones that do appear can use DSC which is supposed to be perceptually lossless. So why do AMD (and Intel?) include it then? AMD have kinda tried supporting edge features to provide value, although I'd rather they focus keeping up with core technologies. Basically support for this is irrelevant for vast majority of people.

 

Edit: thinking more about possible impact of DSC to image quality, suppose you can drive that 4k display to 240 Hz. Firstly are you really going to be examining pixels at 4k anyway, and each frame would be around for as little as 4ms. To hit this in any non-trivial game would probably require upscaling and frame generation.

[Blue4130]

2 hours ago, rippy4500 said:

Its just branding though right? It doesnt require any additional feature support?

Thats the issue. Some are fine with DSC but I really want to avoid it if I can.

Well look at the two monitors that you mentioned. Neither have future tech ports. They both are using hdmi 2.1 and dp 1.4 still. They are only getting 4k 240 with DSC.

 

 

[rippy4500]

22 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Well look at the two monitors that you mentioned. Neither have future tech ports. They both are using hdmi 2.1 and dp 1.4 still. They are only getting 4k 240 with DSC.

Looking into it now you're actually right on that, I didnt look at that since I really expected them to have DP 2.0 to do true 4K 240hz. These are unreleased products though so maybe they will add it in the final product.

[rippy4500]

48 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm only guessing, but possible reasons why Nvidia didn't go DP2.x may include: there are practically no displays using it. The early ones that do appear can use DSC which is supposed to be perceptually lossless. So why do AMD (and Intel?) include it then? AMD have kinda tried supporting edge features to provide value, although I'd rather they focus keeping up with core technologies. Basically support for this is irrelevant for vast majority of people.

 

Edit: thinking more about possible impact of DSC to image quality, suppose you can drive that 4k display to 240 Hz. Firstly are you really going to be examining pixels at 4k anyway, and each frame would be around for as little as 4ms. To hit this in any non-trivial game would probably require upscaling and frame generation.

DSC is advertised as visually lossless but in reality its lossy compression. I bet its noticable in some scenarios and also I tend to be good at noticing artifacts that compression tends to cause. Im just sort of a perfectionist when it comes to this type of stuff so thats why I tend to hate on DSC even though I understand its fine 99% of the time.

[Blue4130]

29 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

DSC is advertised as visually lossless but in reality its lossy compression. I bet its noticable in some scenarios and also I tend to be good at noticing artifacts that compression tends to cause. Im just sort of a perfectionist when it comes to this type of stuff so thats why I tend to hate on DSC even though I understand its fine 99% of the time.

Do you have proof to back up that it is in fact lossy? Everything I have read about it shows that it is lossless. I've been using it for the better part of two years and have not noticed anything.

[porina]

32 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

DSC is advertised as visually lossless but in reality its lossy compression. I bet its noticable in some scenarios and also I tend to be good at noticing artifacts that compression tends to cause. Im just sort of a perfectionist when it comes to this type of stuff so thats why I tend to hate on DSC even though I understand its fine 99% of the time.

At lower pixel densities maybe, but as we push for higher density any potential problem gets reduced. I have dabbled with chroma subsampling before and that can look messy fast. Don't know how DSC works as a comparison.

 

2 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Do you have proof to back up that it is in fact lossy? Everything I have read about it shows that it is lossless. I've been using it for the better part of two years and have not noticed anything.

I'm sure I've seen it described as "visually lossless" meaning you're not suppose to notice it being lossy. It also doesn't mean you can't find some loss, if people look for it hard enough.

 

I guess it could be loosely compared to a JPEG saved at highest quality. It is still lossy, but the losses are so small by that point can you see them without doing a comparison of pixel values?