ASUS' TUF Gaming VG279QM will deliver 280Hz refresh rates and ELMB-sync

[NeverBackDown]

Those are aspects that need to be dealt with to squeeze that much data down the cables and ensure the controller at the end can still cope, but I think they use the term "Overclocking" because they're pushing it beyond the panels rated specification with the refresh rate (I guess technically[though this is devils advocate] you could say that refresh/sync rate is still traditionally in the digital age controlled by a crystal oscillator generating a clock pulse as with other digital electronics).

Basically, even if they do all these things mentioned above to reduce the quality to squeeze/process that much data, there's still no guarantee the display is actually displaying every full image on each frame cycle, with a high speed camera I remember Wendell finding quite a lot fell short, as the panels still couldn't physically change all their pixels states quick enough, and many of these "frames" would end up incomplete or even blank, which at full speed can result in a very jittery image (And ofc only a fraction of the dialed-in "overlock" rate when only counting complete or near complete frames).

Not true at all. 280hz is well within the supported range of the display port/HDMI standards. They don't need to do anything. Hence why this monitor in OP isn't using any special techniques to push 280hz.

 

[grec]

Not true at all. 280hz is well within the supported range of the display port/HDMI standards. They don't need to do anything. Hence why this monitor in OP isn't using any special techniques to push 280hz.

Might be worth reading the full comment, besides the fact this was tangential to my main point;

and ensure the controller at the end can still cope

Not every LCD panel controller will be built for the top end absolute limits of a display protocol, though even so if using the DisplayPort connection on this unit it WOULD need the adjustments WYP mentioned to support even a 240Hz refresh rate at 1080p, and you'd need to use 4:2:0 sampling (Maybe get away with 4:2:2 without audio) at 280Hz even with the HDMI 2.0 ports here.

If this device used HDMI2.1 or DisplayPort 1.4 or newer then you'd have part of a point, but it doesn't and many still don't.

 

[NeverBackDown]

I did read it actually and that's all entirely useless as the other panels you mentioned couldn't even reach that refresh rate since they were never built to reach 280hz. It's just a moot point. It's literally all hypothetical which has no tangible meaning. You're basically saying a 10 second car can't reach a 5 second time without modifications.

It's completely irrelevant to the fact that this display is not overclocked and supports this refresh rate. DP1.2 supports 1440p at 240hz. It's less bandwidth to reach 1080p/280hz.

 

[grec]

DP1.2 supports 1440p at 240hz.

*With sub 4:4:4 sampling.

Again you seem to be entirely missing the point though, because this argument means nothing to the rest of my message, and you're still ignoring the fact that it's the LCD controller that's usually the limitation in this part of the chain even with regards to this irrelevant point

(My original point is that an overclocked LCD panel is not necessarily rated to display every frame fully at its OC'd rate, yields vary with LCD panels and some may, but often you're hitting hard physical limits on pixel transition speed before these above mentioned transmission limits even come into play, and you get an erratic picture regardless if most of the pixels in your panel aren't changing state quick enough anyway-- The question is always IF, because no one will have verified your individual panel robustly to these levels. Some might do it fine, others will be a disaster).

 

[NeverBackDown]

You're assuming it's overclocked. That's the point your missing. DP can display 1080/280 without changing the sampling. You're just bringing it up and it's totally irrelevant. It has the bandwidth. Asus clearly knows how to make a monitor. They would have built the controller to handle the bandwidth. Otherwise it wouldn't be advertised now would it. They wouldnt have it listed as a standard if it couldnt support what the bandwidth is capable of. The controllers are all built to a standard, aka transferring max bandwidth of DP1.2. sure they may have cheaper ones that are only needed for 1080/60 but you really think Asus would put 60hz controller in a 280hz monitor? I also listed 1440/240 as an example of bandwidth.

You're entire argument is based off hypothetical situations. You are making assumptions based off controllers without even knowing anything statistical about them let alone if its overclocked or not.

 

[grec]

We were discussing issues with overclocked monitors generally at that point anyway lol, might be worth reading the comments

[And STILL, this whole discussion and DisplayPort and LCD controllers is irrelevant to my actual point, but here's the maths on why you're wrong on this point here anyway]
DisplayPort 1.2 Bandwidth = 21.6Gbit/s
Encoding scheme = 8b/10b
Therefore DisplayPort 1.2 effective data rate= [8/10]*21.6 = 17.28Gbit/s

Total pixels in a 1080p transmission with standard blanking intervals = 2200 x 1125 = 2.457mil
Total pixels per second at 240 Hz = 2.457mil * 240 = 594mil
Therefore bandwidth per channel with full 8 bit colour depth at 10bits/clock and no compression: 5.94Gbit/s
Therefore bandwidth for a 1080p@240HZ RGB image = 17.82Gbit/s
Just for fun, here's 280Hz = (6.93Gbit/s per channel) 20.79Gbit/s total

17.82(1080p@240Hz) > 17.28(DP1.2), and this is why if you try to use 1080p@>240Hz via DP1.2 it WILL use 4:2:2 subsampling[Or custom blanking intervals can just about work with 240Hz], as can be verified from various other sources across the internet.

(I used to have to OC my RAMDAC's to push enterprise grade CRTs with these weak modern digital controllers, spent far too long doing these calculations)