Asus ROG PG32UCDM - 4k OLED 240hz

McCarthy said:
I’ve been reading through the issues you’ve had and have heard that DSC could be the culprit for issues with the 50 series GPU’s.

What options are there that you would recommend with 32” and display 2.1? Preferably with burn in warranty and the same features as the PG32UCDM/P

I understand the PG27UCDM does have 2.1 however I’m used to a 32” and don’t know if this would be too much to downgrade.
Click to expand...

From what I know, the only 32” models out with the full 2.1 port are the Gigabyte FO32U2P and MSI 322URX models.

The way the existing 32” are being discounted at the moment, I’m expecting more models being released at some point this year.

If you’re dead set on 32” and like that size, you’re probably just better off with waiting tbh, unless you like the look of either model I mention above.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
From what I know, the only 32” models out with the full 2.1 port are the Gigabyte FO32U2P and MSI 322URX models.

The way the existing 32” are being discounted at the moment, I’m expecting more models being released at some point this year.

If you’re dead set on 32” and like that size, you’re probably just better off with waiting tbh, unless you like the look of either model I mention above.
Click to expand...
I was set on either the PG32UCDM or PG32UCDP, leaning towards the latter. After reading issues with DSC it has completely put me off.

Unfortunately I need a monitor by Monday when my system is finally complete, so waiting is not an option.

I thought using a 5090 would be fine. I mean these issues are not 100% down to the DSC maybe but it is looking that way and kind of makes sense after reading all the posts including yours.

I will look at the two you mentioned but I doubt the burn in warranty is included.

Thank you.
 
Nitefly said:
@McCarthy for what it’s worth my own issues have been with a 3090 and a (relatively) budget monitor. I’d only be concerned if you’ve seen / heard of specific issues from 50 series owners.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard of issues which could be related to DSC but not 100% confirmed. Black screen issues etc.

There doesn’t seem to be too many complaints on this post. People seem to be enjoying the monitor.

I’m sure I’d get used to the 27”, it seems to be the best option right now that ticks all boxes so to speak.
 
Last edited:
McCarthy said:
I’ve heard of issues which could be related to DSC but not 100% confirmed. Black screen issues etc.

There doesn’t seem to be too many complaints on this post. People seem to be enjoying the monitor.

I’m sure I’d get used to the 27”, it seems to be the best option right now that ticks all boxes don’t speak.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are talking about driver issues… I’ve suspected DSC issues, perhaps some confusion caused by assumptions made because of the new 80gb/s ports.

If this exists, I would have hoped it got fixed with patches / driver updates etc.

If you can’t wait, the PG27UCDM is pretty darn good - some issues with the proximity sensor when not using a keyboard and mouse… but hopefully new firmware sorts that.

New 32” models may have better brightness, although the PG27 is piercingly bright anyway IMO.
 
Nitefly said:
A lot of people are talking about driver issues… I’ve suspected DSC issues, perhaps some confusion caused by assumptions made because of the new 80gb/s ports.

If this exists, I would have hoped it got fixed with patches / driver updates etc.

If you can’t wait, the PG27UCDM is pretty darn good - some issues with the proximity sensor when not using a keyboard and mouse… but hopefully new firmware sorts that.

New 32” models may have better brightness, although the PG27 is piercingly bright anyway IMO.
Click to expand...
No it’s not just your assumption, I’ve read Reddit posts with similar thoughts regarding this. People are trying to upgrade cables etc in the hope it changes something.

I’ve just checked and the 27” does not seem to be available until the end of April unfortunately.

The two 32” that you mentioned don’t have burn in warranty which is a must for me.
 
@Nitefly I spoke to a retailer today regarding the DSC and which monitors they had available to suit my needs. The tech guy told me that if I bought the PG32UCDM/P I’d only get the full bandwidth if I use the hdmi cable and not the display port and they recommend people only use it this way.

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
@McCarthy those monitors don’t have a DP2.1 port - I’m pretty sure their HDMI bandwidth is slightly higher than the DP they do have, so that’s probably what he was saying. You ought to be able to figure it out from the spec pages - sorry working at the mo so can’t deep dive for you :p
 
Nitefly said:
@McCarthy those monitors don’t have a DP2.1 port - I’m pretty sure their HDMI bandwidth is slightly higher than the DP they do have, so that’s probably what he was saying. You ought to be able to figure it out from the spec pages - sorry working at the mo so can’t deep dive for you :p
Click to expand...
I know they don’t have DP 2.1 which is why I don’t understand the need to use a HDMI cable instead of the display cable that comes with the PG32UCDM for example.

I’m trying to explain best I can, but in simple terms can I buy the PG32UCDM/P and simply connect the provided display port cable into my 5090 and get 4K 240HZ, or is using the HDMI cable the better option? The way I interpreted it was he was saying I have to use the HDMI cable or I’d lose bandwidth…..

This is all the gobbledygook to me :confused:
 
McCarthy said:
I know they don’t have DP 2.1 which is why I don’t understand the need to use a HDMI cable instead of the display cable that comes with the PG32UCDM for example.

I’m trying to explain best I can, but in simple terms can I buy the PG32UCDM/P and simply connect the provided display port cable into my 5090 and get 4K 240HZ, or is using the HDMI cable the better option? The way I interpreted it was he was saying I have to use the HDMI cable or I’d lose bandwidth…..

This is all the gobbledygook to me :confused:
Click to expand...

The short answer is that either DP1.4 or HDMI2.1 should allow you to run 240hz (using display stream compression - DSC). I’m currently doing exactly this on my PG27UCDM using a DP1.4 output from my 3090 (because my 5090 hadn’t arrived). If I turn off DSC on the monitor, I can only get 120hz max.

DP 1.4 has a bandwidth of around 32gb/s

HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of around 48gb/s

DP 2.1 (with full UHBR20 - there are different versions) has a bandwidth of around 80gb/s

^^^ in theory, HDMI 2.1 is therefore better than DP1.4 and may use less compression - but since the level of compression being used is never set out in windows, it’s debatable whether you’d actually see a different (if there is one).

Also, sometimes different monitors / drivers will prefer DP over HDMI, or vice versa.

So long at it works… use it! If it doesn’t work, or there are glitches, see if the other works better :)

You don’t need to use DSC at all with a DP2.1 monitor that supports UHBR20 - you can run it full native with a 50 series card.

Make more sense now? :)
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
The short answer is that either DP1.4 or HDMI2.1 should allow you to run 240hz (using display stream compression - DSC). I’m currently doing exactly this on my PG27UCDM using a DP1.4 output from my 3090 (because my 5090 hadn’t arrived). If I turn off DSC on the monitor, I can only get 120hz max.

DP 1.4 has a bandwidth of around 32gb/s

HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of around 48gb/s

DP 2.1 (with full UHBR20 - there are different versions) has a bandwidth of around 80gb/s

^^^ in theory, HDMI 2.1 is therefore better than DP1.4 and may use less compression - but since the level of compression being used is never set out in windows, it’s debatable whether you’d actually see a different (if there is one).

Also, sometimes different monitors / drivers will prefer DP over HDMI, or vice versa.

So long at it works… use it! If it doesn’t work, or there are glitches, see if the other works better :)

You don’t need to use DSC at all with a DP2.1 monitor that supports UHBR20 - you can run it full native with a 50 series card.

Make more sense now? :)
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense to me now. Thank you!

I thought my decision was made until I realise there are no PG27UCDM available to buy.

This leaves the F032U2P as the only DP 2.1 option available right now or PG32UCDM, PG32UCDP with no 2.1

The F032U2P is reduced on a certain place which makes it a very similar price to the PG32UCDM. Which one is better….I have no idea.

I will have to flip some coins maybe.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I’m pretty sure their HDMI bandwidth is slightly higher than the DP they do have, so that’s probably what he was saying. You ought to be able to figure it out from the spec pages - sorry working at the mo so can’t deep dive for you :p
Click to expand...

When i had my PG32UCDM connected by HDMI am sure i could choose 12-Bit colour where with the DP connection i can only choose 10-Bit

But am a long way from being 100% sure on this, I would need to try connecting by HDMI again sometime to confirm.
 
Last edited:
chaparral said:
When i had my PG32UCDM connected by HDMI am sure i could choose 12-Bit colour where with the DP connection i can only choose 10-Bit

But am a long way from being 100% sure on this, I would need to try connecting by HDMI again sometime to confirm.
Click to expand...
What are your honest thoughts about this monitor?
 
Nitefly said:
The short answer is that either DP1.4 or HDMI2.1 should allow you to run 240hz (using display stream compression - DSC). I’m currently doing exactly this on my PG27UCDM using a DP1.4 output from my 3090 (because my 5090 hadn’t arrived). If I turn off DSC on the monitor, I can only get 120hz max.

DP 1.4 has a bandwidth of around 32gb/s

HDMI 2.1 has a bandwidth of around 48gb/s

DP 2.1 (with full UHBR20 - there are different versions) has a bandwidth of around 80gb/s

^^^ in theory, HDMI 2.1 is therefore better than DP1.4 and may use less compression - but since the level of compression being used is never set out in windows, it’s debatable whether you’d actually see a different (if there is one).

Also, sometimes different monitors / drivers will prefer DP over HDMI, or vice versa.

So long at it works… use it! If it doesn’t work, or there are glitches, see if the other works better :)

You don’t need to use DSC at all with a DP2.1 monitor that supports UHBR20 - you can run it full native with a 50 series card.

Make more sense now? :)
Click to expand...
This will be the same with all 4k, 240hz monitors right?
You’ll need a 50 series card (or other that supports DP 2.1) to run full 4k, 240hz without DSC?

Even HDMI 2.1 isnt enough. It will use DSC as 4k 240hz requires 65.6gb/s (10bit)
8bit 4:4:4 would also require 53.3gb/s.

Doing some reading, DSC isnt an issue unless photo editing or doing other tasks that requires colour critical work like scientific or medical imaging.
 
Guest2 said:
This will be the same with all 4k, 240hz monitors right?
You’ll need a 50 series card (or other that supports DP 2.1) to run full 4k, 240hz without DSC?

Even HDMI 2.1 isnt enough. It will use DSC as 4k 240hz requires 65.6gb/s (10bit)
8bit 4:4:4 would also require 53.3gb/s.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s right.

Guest2 said:
Doing some reading, DSC isnt an issue unless photo editing or doing other tasks that requires colour critical work like scientific or medical imaging.
Click to expand...
In respect of colour accuracy, yes that’s right.

Otherwise, it may cause issues:
- Alt tabbing out if games with Nvidia cards causes a black screen.
- The black screen can occur randomly at other times.
- You will not have the options to use DSR factors in Nvidia control panel (not really and issue for most but it’s worth nothing).

The black screen issues may be impacted by the monitor you’re running and the refresh rate you’re aiming for.

From Dell:

What is Display Stream Compression?​

Display Stream Compression can reduce the bandwidth required to transmit high-resolution video signals by compressing the video signal to reduce the amount of data that must be transmitted without compromising the image quality.

When DSC is enabled, the compression ratio varies depending on the resolution and refresh rate of the video signal being transmitted. In general, higher resolutions and refresh rates require higher compression ratios to maintain the same level of image quality. As a result, enabling DSC can increase the maximum resolution and refresh rate that can be supported over a given bandwidth.

DSC can also have some drawbacks. For example, some monitors may not be fully compatible with DSC. This may cause display issues or blanking.
Click to expand...

I’m yet to encounter any issues with my PG27UCDM using DSC.

Also: see this thread of people suffering https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/17a3zrg/nvidia_54584_allegedly_fixes_black_screen/
 
Last edited:
The other thing to consider with DSC is how many monitors you have in your setup, particularly with Nvidia GPUs.

Each instance of using DSC disables a physical output port on your graphics card - so as long as only one of your monitors is using DSC then you'll mostly be fine in a triple monitor setup. Likewise, if you're running two monitors both using DSC then you'll be fine too - but something worth considering, especially if you also have a dedicated capture card too.

It's strange that Nvidia still haven't solved the black screen issue when alt-tabbing from a monitor using DSC - or that they haven't sorted out DSR. As much AMD have their flaws, both of those are non-issues on an AMD GPU. Alt-tabbing is fine and VSR (whilst not as clean to get in place as DSR) also works fine over DSC.
 
Not had any issues with DSC from my 9070 xt (or even previous RTX 4070) using DSC. Think like reddish hue on qd-oled it's a very minor consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom