New display cable created makes 8K Resolution @ 120Hz possible

[ThreePinkApples]

Well, I would like higher bit color before 8k 120hz (60hz is a must though), but I guess they could use the bandwith that way if they want, I like it. Now but it on the RX 300 series AMD (not likely at all)!

[GoodBytes]

Hang on guys. To get 8K 120Hz it uses 6 lanes.

That means you'll have tearing 6 times (6 separation you'll see) on your screen on fast motion, much like the early 4K monitors that were using 2 Display Port lanes (MST).

So in other words it's a stupid hack. At the end of the day it can only do what DisplayPort does, and that is 4K 60Hz.

And, as mentioned, it's only 4:2:0.

[patrickjp93]

many may not, but an "enthusiast" would - and who do you think wants 8k 120hz? yep... enthusiasts.

 

I tested this with my 4k 60hz screen, toggled from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 and the difference is intense

 

See the below image for the loss in fidelity when using sub 4:4:4 Chroma sub-sampling

 

 

barf... I'm colorblind and have bad eyes and can tell the difference both in color and in granularity.

[GoodBytes]

Well, that cable should last us a few years.

No it won't, it sucks. It uses cheap tricks to achieve that fancy results. We want single stream. That is the way forward.

OR some kind of fancy synchronization system between streams AND the GPU AND the monitor, which is possible, but costly.

[patrickjp93]

No it won't, it sucks. It uses cheap tricks to achieve that fancy results. We want single stream. That is the way forward.

OR some kind of fancy synchronization system between streams AND the GPU AND the monitor, which is possible, but costly.

You're thinking the way Intel did back with netburst. You can only make a single core/cable do so much. Parallel is the way forward until we get quantum leaps in technology. And, if the hardware on both sides is good, we'll never see a tear.

[LukaP]

many may not, but an "enthusiast" would - and who do you think wants 8k 120hz? yep... enthusiasts.

 

I tested this with my 4k 60hz screen, toggled from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 and the difference is intense

 

See the below image for the loss in fidelity when using sub 4:4:4 Chroma sub-sampling

 

 

 

Colorcomp.jpg

this is a still. try this on a video and tell me you see any difference

[patrickjp93]

this is a still. try this on a video and tell me you see any difference

Can humans see faster than 60Hz or not?

[GoodBytes]

You're thinking the way Intel did back with netburst. You can only make a single core/cable do so much. Parallel is the way forward until we get quantum leaps in technology. And, if the hardware on both sides is good, we'll never see a tear.

Yes.. and that is why NO ONE wants to buy those multi-stream 4K monitors, as any motion you see the split. Like i said you need synchronization system, and that doesn't exists, as it's costly, and needs to be implemented on the video controller GPU, and probably the monitor as well. This doesn't have this.

You'll see massive 6 tearing line. It's junk.

Even GPUs and multi-core CPUs have synchronization systems.

So your choice is:

Better/faster single stream

OR

Implement synchronization system, which this thing doesn't.

[Albatross]

I have never heard of MHL. So this is super news to me.

[LukaP]

Can humans see faster than 60Hz or not?

i cant tell you that because i am not an expert on brain eye communication, but based on a quick google, the eye can see more than that, and some people can percieve it

[patrickjp93]

Yes.. and that is why NO ONE wants to buy those multi-stream 4K monitors, as any motion you see the split. Like i said you need synchronization system, and that doesn't exists, as it's costly, and needs to be implemented on the video controller GPU, and probably the monitor as well. This doesn't have this.

You'll see massive 6 tearing line. It's junk.

Even GPUs and multi-core CPUs have synchronization systems.

So your choice is:

Better/faster single stream

OR

Implement synchronization system, which this thing doesn't.

It's easy to implement. A University Student computer engineer can do this! It's called a hardware-level semaphore or a spin-lock. It's easy as Hell to do! Also, you don't need synchronization at all. The monitor holds data in RAM. Just have 4 RAM channels and have the monitor stream from each one sequentially.

[legopc]

could anyone actually explain what the 4:2:0 means... i have no idea 

[LukaP]

could anyone actually explain what the 4:2:0 means... i have no idea 

its the subchroma sampling method google it, images help

[BiG StroOnZ]

many may not, but an "enthusiast" would - and who do you think wants 8k 120hz? yep... enthusiasts.

 

I tested this with my 4k 60hz screen, toggled from 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 and the difference is intense

 

See the below image for the loss in fidelity when using sub 4:4:4 Chroma sub-sampling

 

 

 

Colorcomp.jpg

 

Those look extremely exaggerated:

 

4:2:0:

 

 

 

4:4:4:

 

 

And you didn't test that you got them from www.extremetech.com which got it from Wikipedia or you just went straight to Wikipedia and snagged them.

[Albatross]

i cant tell you that because i am not an expert on brain eye communication, but based on a quick google, the eye can see more than that, and some people can percieve it

 

Do they possess the Sharingan?  /narutard

 

I thought they actually proved that a lot of people can see (way) beyond 60hz a while ago?

[HippY]

Can humans see faster than 60Hz or not?

you know what? here is an experiment that you should try

 

Ask a friend to stand next to the light switch

Stand in front of the white wall, light source behind you.

ask your friend to switch the lights slowly to 60 to 120 to 144 times per second.

each time you see a light shout loud, so you can use voice recording for accurate results

in 5-10 minutes the neighbors should call the cops on you and you will end up in a mental hospital!

 

... my technique might need some refinement but it is a good start

[.spider.]

The 4:4:4 hype train entered some brains.

[patrickjp93]

The 4:4:4 hype train entered some brains.

At least on stills you can see the difference rather easily. For slow frame rates it's going to be obvious. 

[.spider.]

At least on stills you can see the difference rather easily.

In some particular cases and cropped images.

[Agent181]

Balls to the wall.

i never get tired of seeing ur profile pic, i die laughing every time  

[patrickjp93]

In some particular cases and cropped images.

No, in a lot of cases. If the frame rate is low enough, I'm pretty sure I could notice rather easily.

[BiG StroOnZ]

In some particular cases and cropped images.

 

Not just in particular cases, and cropped images. But they have to zoom in all the way to the edges, or use some sort of image filtering, or use special images which makes it look apparent. 

[.spider.]

No, in a lot of cases. If the frame rate is low enough, I'm pretty sure I could notice rather easily.

Even the real color resolution of the red and blue channel of most cameras is only a quarter of its luma resolution.

[GoodBytes]

It's easy to implement. A University Student computer engineer can do this! It's called a hardware-level semaphore or a spin-lock. It's easy as Hell to do! Also, you don't need synchronization at all. The monitor holds data in RAM. Just have 4 RAM channels and have the monitor stream from each one sequentially.

Great. Now Explain that to Nvidia and AMD, they seam to think it requires some fancy separate circuit board, and cost over 100$, and only works with some select expensive cards

And that is why when you have multiple screen setup on the same card, they are not in sync either. A problem with multiple screen gaming.

But I guess all Nvidia and AMD both needed is a university student in engineering.

And of course, this cable doesn't have any sync system, so what is the point! Its junk regardless

[GoodBytes]

The 4:4:4 hype train entered some brains.

Actually when I switch from satellite TV to cable, I saw a large visual difference, and that was on my old CRT TV (able to do 720p, it was the good last CRT TVs).

At the time, I had no idea on the compression method. And sure enough, the reason why the cable providing providing 4:4:4, and the other not.

Satellite looks like this strange JPEG compression applied to the video content provided. At least the provider where I live.