Yamakasi Catleap 27" 100mhz IPS

[PCplodder]

No problem lol, I understand how it could have looked like I was replying to you. I was just replying to the thread based on the last few pages.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

The only way to support 2560x1440 @ anything over 75hz is by using a displayport V1.2 system. The cables are very similar to displayport V1.1 and use aux channels for extra info they are backwards compatible to any DP revision. The Radeon 7970 natively supports displayport V1.2 and I'm sure the 670/680 do as well. Put simply if you are using a Dual link Dvi connection you will never get more than 75hz @ 2560x1440. You would need to use the DP V1.2 connection and a compatible monitor. Edit - I think HDMi 1.4 also supports the 4k res but have no idea on refresh rates etc...

This is what is available on a DP V1.2 connection. They are usually referred to as Quad HD connections.

One 4,092-by-2,160 display at 60 fps with 24 bpp
One 3,840-by-2,160 display at 60 fps with 30 bpp
One 2,560-by-1,600 (WQXGA) display at 120 fps with 30 bpp
Two 2,560-by-1,600 displays at 60 fps with 30 bpp
Four 1,920-by-1,080 (1080p) displays at 60 fps with 24 bpp
Five 1,680-by-1,050 (WSXGA) displays at 60 fps with 24 bpp
Ten 1,280-by-768 (WXGA) displays at 60 fps with 24 bpp

No problem lol, I understand how it could have looked like I was replying to you. I was just replying to the thread based on the last few pages.

It's been a long day and my Diablo 3 has not shipped so I'm slightly more short tempered and angry than usual....


Edit - This is only my idea on this 120hz saga if anyone can add anything or has any info on how this can be achieved please share as I'm interested to see how. I'm going to order a 2B variant of the catleap to have a little play myself and will take it apart to examine the circuit.. Being retired makes you do crazy things...

 

[melmac]

I here allot of people arguing about the bandwidth limitations of Dual L DVI....

Dual L DVI has a certain Bandwidth it is tested at to pass as a fully functional DL DVI.

The same as HDMI 1.4 or HDMI 1.3

But this doesn't mean that a good quality DL DVI cable cant produce a 100hz signal on a 1440p image, just like one HDMI 1.3 cable can potentially be used instead of a HDMI 1.4 cable it just isnt tested and passed as the 1.4 certification.

If you have a good quality Dual Link DVI you have a good chance it will display 100hz at 1440p, people here are acting as if it hits a brick wall at its tested specification, which isn't true, nearly all can handle more bandwidth than the DL DVI specification,just depends on the quality of the cable how much more, its just they are not tested for it.

But nobody here is arguing about anything, We were discussing Moogleys post about the limitations of the dual dvi system in regards to these korean monitors.

Maybe the right terms weren't used in the right places but I understood it to be talking about the whole thing cable and cards and monitor.

The only question I had was why a single link DVI (cable, interface etc) can't even reach the necessary bandwidth for 1920*1080@120hz no matter what quality cable is used. And why there was no such limitation on dual link dvi?

And you even agree with Moogley's post about how it all works. So if you agree with that post then you agree with this section from it that states

"DL-DVI is enough for the current generation of 3D monitors, but there are already people looking for 2560×1600 resolution and 120Hz refresh or asking about 120Hz refresh rate per eye in 3D mode and not only in 2D on Full HD displays. Such requirements are not possible unless DisplayPort is used"

Now I don't give a rats ass whether it's the system or the cable, but that's a pretty clear statement. Dual link DVI will not work at high refresh rates at such high resolutions. Is that true or not?

Which brings us back to what we were discussing, it wasn't the limits of the cable, but the limits of the whole thing. And how these Korean monitors could work at such high resolutions and high refresh rates over Dual link dvi.

And yeah I don't understood how it all works, that's why I am here talking about it. Careful!

 

[melmac]

The only way to support 2560x1440 @ anything over 75hz is by using a displayport V1.2 system. The cables are very similar to displayport V1.1 and use aux channels for extra info they are backwards compatible to any DP revision. The Radeon 7970 natively supports displayport V1.2 and I'm sure the 670/680 do as well. Put simply if you are using a Dual link Dvi connection you will never get more than 75hz @ 2560x1440. You would need to use the DP V1.2 connection and a compatible monitor. Edit - I think HDMi 1.4 also supports the 4k res but have no idea on refresh rates etc...

This is what is available on a DP V1.2 connection. They are usually referred to as Quad HD connections.






It's been a long day and my Diablo 3 has not shipped so I'm slightly more short tempered and angry than usual....


Edit - This is only my idea on this 120hz saga if anyone can add anything or has any info on how this can be achieved please share as I'm interested to see how. I'm going to order a 2B variant of the catleap to have a little play myself and will take it apart to examine the circuit.. Being retired makes you do crazy things...

Well I thought that's what We were doing talking about the various aspects of it.

But I am afraid to post anymore in case I upset pcplodder again. God forbid I say anything that might be wrong or found on google

Oh actually I just found this on another forum,

"There is no design maximum pixel clock for dual link DVI.

The limit of 165 mhz pixel clock is imposed on single link DVI. If you go beyond 165 mhz pixel clock, you must go to dual link DVI and split the pixel clock between the two links. The 330 mhz "limit" is people just saying that DL-DVI = 2x SL-DVI, but this is not strictly true. The DVI spec does not impose a similar limit 165mhz limit (per link) on DL-DVI. Thus, the only limitation in the DVI spec concerning pixel clock is that if you are going over 165mhz pixel clock, you must use DL-DVI. That's it. Every argument on the limitations of bandwidth on DVI is based off of this statement."

This seems to answer my question about single link to dual link and why the wall. So that's good.

So it seems that the DVI spec, system, transmission whatever you want to call it, can output at resolutions higher than 2560x1440@75hz. That there is no limit only the copper itself.

 

[PCplodder]

But nobody here is arguing about anything, We were discussing Moogleys post about the limitations of the dual dvi system in regards to these korean monitors.

Maybe the right terms weren't used in the right places but I understood it to be talking about the whole thing cable and cards and monitor.

The only question I had was why a single link DVI (cable, interface etc) can't even reach the necessary bandwidth for 1920*1080@120hz no matter what quality cable is used. And why there was no such limitation on dual link dvi?

And you even agree with Moogley's post about how it all works. So if you agree with that post then you agree with this section from it that states

"DL-DVI is enough for the current generation of 3D monitors, but there are already people looking for 2560×1600 resolution and 120Hz refresh or asking about 120Hz refresh rate per eye in 3D mode and not only in 2D on Full HD displays. Such requirements are not possible unless DisplayPort is used"

Now I don't give a rats ass whether it's the system or the cable, but that's a pretty clear statement. Dual link DVI will not work at high refresh rates at such high resolutions. Is that true or not?

Which brings us back to what we were discussing, it wasn't the limits of the cable, but the limits of the whole thing. And how these Korean monitors could work at such high resolutions and high refresh rates over Dual link dvi.

And yeah I don't understood how it all works, that's why I am here talking about it. So take your hard on, know it all attitude and shove it.

A good quality Single Link DVI cable (Not a cheap crappy one) can potentially and often can output a 100hz signal on a 1080p monitor (I have one that can on my BenQ) The same way a good Dual Link DVI can potentially output 100hz on a 1440p monitor.

As stated, its not the cable that is of concern, its the whole rig.

"So take your hard on, know it all attitude and shove it." There really is no need to get personal, I have never even spoke to you before this post, enough of the personal attack, calm down.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

From another forum this is supporting what I said in my own not so good wording (I am ex-forces we just grunt)...

Okay, as per Ken's request once again, I'll clear up some misinformation regarding cable bandwidth and monitor refresh rates:

My message to Ken:

KK, did some number crunching for you. The effective data rate of a dual link DVI cable is 7.92 Gbits/second. With this in mind, the highest resolution dual link DVI supports at 120hz is 1920*1200. How do we know this? 1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels, 2304000 x 120(hz) = 276,480,000 x 24(bit color) = 6,635,520,000 or 6.63 Gbits/sec.

For a resolution of 2560*1440, lets do the math:

2560*1440 = 3,686,400 x 120(hz) = 442,368,000 pixels per second x 24(bit color) = 10,616,832,000 bits per second or 10.6 Gbits/second.

Dual-link DVI effective data rate = 7.92 Gbits/sec
HDMI 1.3/1.4 effective data rate = 8.16 Gbits/sec
DisplayPort 1.0/1.1 effective data rate = 8.64 Gbits/sec

2560*1440 @ 120hz = 10.61=Gbits/sec which is well over all of these.

Displayport 1.2 effective data rate = 17.28 Gbits/sec
HDMI Type B effective data rate = 20.40 Gbits/sec

Those would work with 2560*1440 @ 120hz

From the write up I did, I would hypothesize that the hardware is indeed pumping out 2560*1440 @ 120hz or greater, but the bandwidth is being exceeded and the monitor is is not showing many of the frames. Just like when you're gaming at 120hz yet you have a 60hz monitor, you're missing half the frames the hardware is pumping out.

And in response to the above...

gain Smykster, it would behoove you to do some additional reading in the Catleap threads (particularly people replying to and refuting your claims) as well as some additional research overall. More than a couple times now people have pointed you to specifications that clearly indicate that Dual-link DVI is *not* limited to simply 2x the bandwidth of single-link. The same way an HDMI 1.3/1.4 (which is electrically single-link DVI) can reach effective data rates around twice that of single-link DVI (since it also does not have a hard 165MHz clock limit) dual-link DVI can also be run at any clock rate that the associated hardware and cables can handle. I get the feeling people are getting a little tired of pointing this out over and over again, so please do some thorough research to convince yourself of this fact.

If you're presuming that the monitor or card is simply frame-dropping at high refresh rates, the logic for that doesn't really pan out. Consider firstly that we have confirmation for sure that the monitors will actually accept and display refresh rates above 60. I have personally tested as high as 90Hz, and confirmed that no frame-dropping occurs; I can also visually perceive a difference between this and 81Hz (the next-lowest setting I tested). We *also* know that HyperMatrix has tested the monitors up to roughly 130Hz; his behaviour at these high refresh rates is consistent with running into sync or bandwidth limitations (glitching, artifacting, etc..) and not with frame dropping (which would likely result in a visually perfect image with hitching, followed by a sudden sync loss as the monitor refuses to accept signals at a certain level). Additionally, it would require that the hardware designers for the chips inside the monitor had introduced frame-dropping behaviour at a refresh rate somewhere around 85Hz or so; considering that *absolutely all* LCDs to implement frame-dropping (which is caused by the scalers) do so at 60Hz, this seems to be pretty unlikely to me. As extra justification, checking the datasheets for the chips used in the monitor (the DVI-LVDS converter and the T-con controller) makes no mention of such a feature.

Your assumptions are based on flawed information, your claims are unfounded and your logic is unsound. All evidence indicates that the monitors work at high refresh rate as assumed, and continue to work all the way up to the point where they start glitching or desync. If you're going to make any more posts about this, please take the time to research the subject before acting like an expert on it.

PS: Also, it would probably be better if we avoid mentioning HDMI Type-B; the standard, for all intents and purposes, does not actually exist and is thus not relevant in any way. Last time I tried to look for a picture of the connectors the only thing I could find were sketches; nobody's actually built anything that conforms to it. As an aside though, the numbers you indicate for the bandwidth of HDMI Type-B (a non-clock limited cable electrically equivalent to DVI dual-link) are probably a lot closer to the actual limits of a dual-link DVI than any other numbers you referenced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sxcerino

Have you noticed any response time lag with these monitors?
Coming from a S23A750D, I'm afraid that the lag is going to drive me nuts.
60-> 100hz is a 68% improvement, but if we think of it as the glass being half empty, it's also true that we're missing out on 32% of potential improvement over 60hz

The monitors have no scaler, and overall have a very clean path from the graphics card to the panel with no extra delays. They thus have very low input lag already, and higher refresh rates improve the situation even further. If input lag is your concern, these monitors are great performers. Response times however are obviously not as good as TN so ghosting can still occur - but you will get information on screen from your inputs as soon as possible.

I can kind of see something here but tbh I'm loosing interest a bit now. There are lots of conflicting arguments for both it can and cannot support more. Personally I think there is more to it and I'm hoping to order a 2B and work out a way to measure the refresh rate from the screen to eliminate any software monitoring issues. I would have thought this would have been done as this will %100 prove the screen is refreshing at a faster rate..

 

[PCplodder]

From another forum this is supporting what I said in my own not so good wording (I am ex-forces we just grunt)...

Quote:
Okay, as per Ken's request once again, I'll clear up some misinformation regarding cable bandwidth and monitor refresh rates:

My message to Ken:

KK, did some number crunching for you. The effective data rate of a dual link DVI cable is 7.92 Gbits/second. With this in mind, the highest resolution dual link DVI supports at 120hz is 1920*1200. How do we know this? 1920*1200 = 2,304,000 pixels, 2304000 x 120(hz) = 276,480,000 x 24(bit color) = 6,635,520,000 or 6.63 Gbits/sec.

For a resolution of 2560*1440, lets do the math:

2560*1440 = 3,686,400 x 120(hz) = 442,368,000 pixels per second x 24(bit color) = 10,616,832,000 bits per second or 10.6 Gbits/second.

Dual-link DVI effective data rate = 7.92 Gbits/sec
HDMI 1.3/1.4 effective data rate = 8.16 Gbits/sec
DisplayPort 1.0/1.1 effective data rate = 8.64 Gbits/sec

2560*1440 @ 120hz = 10.61=Gbits/sec which is well over all of these.

Displayport 1.2 effective data rate = 17.28 Gbits/sec
HDMI Type B effective data rate = 20.40 Gbits/sec

Those would work with 2560*1440 @ 120hz

From the write up I did, I would hypothesize that the hardware is indeed pumping out 2560*1440 @ 120hz or greater, but the bandwidth is being exceeded and the monitor is is not showing many of the frames. Just like when you're gaming at 120hz yet you have a 60hz monitor, you're missing half the frames the hardware is pumping out.

Thats not the problem though.

If you test 10 different good quality Dual Link DVI cables you will find that they are all above 7.92gb/s because they are rated and tested to be able to handle that bandwidth atleast.

Out of the 10 cables most would be able to handle 1-2gb/s more bandwidth (which is all 100hz needs incording to the above post)

Only a cheap poor quality DL DVI cable will not be able to produce, or only just produce the 7.92gb/s.

DL DVI cables don't just automatically hit a brick wall at 7.92gb/s, they are just cables, this is just what they are tested to handle at the least. Allot will have a good overhead and be able to handle more than that, A bit like a good quality PSU rated at 850w being able to handle near 1000w just in case (because its good quality and the manufacture intended to have an overhead to ensure it is good quality), only with cable's there is no physical stress involved, its just a cable so there is no harm in running nearer to its max capacity.

 

[Socius]

The difference in bandwidth is immense. There is simply not enough available to be able to transmit the signal. The cable is only a small part you also need to consider the transmission system and the current max clock of the card.
Trying to push 15.75 Gbit down a system that can at max take 9.9 Gbit is just not going to end well. Cable quality is a very small factor as the biggest problem is you just don't have the available bandwidth. A poor quality cable is likely to cause Jitter but this has little effect on bandwidth.

you should really re-read the paper on dldvi specifications. i think what is throwing you off is that at the time of its creation the numbers used throughout referred to a 10gbps limit at 330mhz pixel clock, which at the time of its creation was double the limit of single link dvi and nothing else was required. if you push the max at 537mhz pixel clock on a kepler card, you have yourself over 16gbps bandwidth.

in fact, dual link dvi doesnt have a set limitation.. the limitation is only based on your hardware's ability to run a higher pixel clock, and the capability/quality of your cable because copper is the only limiting factor in dldvi. if you could push a 2000mhz pixel clock and had a golden cable, you could run a 4k display at 240hz if you wanted on dual link dvi.

In case you guys are interested. Original EDID dump:

Spoiler

Monitor
Manufacturer............. HYO
Plug and Play ID......... HYO049B
Serial number............ n/a
Manufacture date......... 2011, ISO week 40
Filter driver............ None
-------------------------
EDID revision............ 1.3
Input signal type........ Digital (DisplayPort)
Color bit depth.......... Undefined
Display type............. Monochrome/grayscale
Screen size.............. 600 x 340 mm (27.2 in)
Power management......... Active off/sleep
Extension blocs.......... 1 (Reserved - 0x00)
-------------------------
DDC/CI................... Not supported

Color characteristics
Default color space...... Non-sRGB
Display gamma............ 2.20
Red chromaticity......... Rx 0.653 - Ry 0.334
Green chromaticity....... Gx 0.300 - Gy 0.620
Blue chromaticity........ Bx 0.146 - By 0.050
White point (default).... Wx 0.313 - Wy 0.329
Additional descriptors... None

Timing characteristics
Range limits............. Not available
GTF standard............. Not supported
Additional descriptors... None
Preferred timing......... Yes
Native/preferred timing.. 2560x1440p at 60Hz (16:9)
Modeline............... "2560x1440" 241.500 2560 2608 2640 2720 1440 1443 1448 1481 +hsync -vsync

Standard timings supported

Report information
Date generated........... 5/12/2012
Software revision........ 2.60.0.972
Data source.............. Real-time 0x0100
Operating system......... 6.1.7601.2.Service Pack 1

 

[MOOGLEYS]

Interesting video showing the monitor running 120hz. There have been a few follow up's saying its fake especially as it's using custom drivers which could alter the shown results to the actual ?? Adds more to the discussion though... Seems fairly gen to me..

 

[MOOGLEYS]

you should really re-read the paper on dldvi specifications. i think what is throwing you off is that at the time of its creation the numbers used throughiut referred to a 10gbps limit at 330mhz pixel clock. if you push the max at 537mhz pixel clock on a kepler card, you have yourself over 16gbps bandwidth.

in fact, dual link dvi doesnt have a set limitation.. the limitation is only based on your hardware's ability to run a higher pixel clock, and the capability/quality of your cable because copper is the only limiting factor in dldvi. if you could push a 2000mhz pixel clock and had a golden cable, you could run a 4k display at 240hz if you wanted on dual link dvi.

Cool it seems my research was a little lagging. i will check this out as going by what you say it does seem possible.

 

[PCplodder]

in fact, dual link dvi doesnt have a set limitation.. the limitation is only based on your hardware's ability to run a higher pixel clock, and the capability/quality of your cable because copper is the only limiting factor in dldvi. if you could push a 2000mhz pixel clock and had a golden cable, you could run a 4k display at 240hz if you wanted on dual link dvi.

This is what ive been saying. DL DVI doesnt have a brick wall, its just a cable thats been tested to be able to handle the the DL DVI specification at least but could handle twice the amount of bandwidth if it was a good cable and still be a dual link DVI..... (just for example, most will just handle a fraction more than the spec, a few Gb/s or maybe more. Which is enough for 100hz at 1440p)

 

[Crezzlin]

Am i the 1st to run 3 Catleap @ 100+Hz in sli suround mode??

 

[james270]

cannot add anything authoritative to the discussion of what DL DVI cables can support, but have been hankering after a monitor with vertical res > 1200 for a the last couple years and been put off by thinking they're £700+...
then I saw the hazro and was going to order that but out of stock. that was a bummer. looked on an auction website to see if any where on there - nothing going - but found these monitors! got shimian currently in china on it's way to me, excited and slightly concerned it's gonna be DOA (bad) or too bright/reflective for my purposes (entirely 'desktop' stuff) but feeling excited!

 

[craarc]

edited none of my quotes r workin

 

[Mark_D]

Hi guys. I'm very keen on getting hold of a 100hz variant of one of these monitors, but I'm petrified of accidentally ordering a 60hz one. Either that or ordering a 2b and being sent the wrong type. I don't suppose somebody who's successfully received a 2b and is running it at 100hz could PM me some info about where it came from could they? You'd be saving me a lot of stressing! Thanks

 

[chipachap]

Well, according to some people on other forums, Phunky is right and there is no bandwidth limit to dual link DVI. Which makes no sense to me. You have a cable with 12 pins that can do 4Gbits max now if you increase the number of pins by 12 to 24 you suddenly have a cable that has unlimited bandwidth!!

Isn't science brilliant

LOL I thought you were serious for second. Just because Wikipedia says there's no limit it must be true!

 

[B16 VAS]

So an IPS monitor which runs at 100mhz or over?

:|

Why can this not be 24"?

Anyone know of a 24" equivalent?

 

[Socius]

LOL I thought you were serious for second. Just because Wikipedia says there's no limit it must be true!

Wikipedia would be correct, actually. There is no limitation within the Dual-Link DVI specification. You'll get as much bandwidth as your cable can handle. Higher quality cable = higher bandwidth. Assuming your source device can output at a higher pixel clock. Currently the only thing I've seen run past 408mhz (approx 12gbps) is the Kepler series of cards which can get 16-17gbps with a 537mhz pixel clock.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

hmm Crossover from the cloth dude or a pixelperfect pcbank from the green guy?
they both seem. Bit better price wise then _korea

 

[dombera]

I`ll be getting my Crossover 27Q LED-P 27" from accessorieswhole next month. His pixel policy is pretty good and he is testing monitors before sendind them out. Also spoken to him via email (actually my wife did- she`s South Korean) and for little extra fee he can send me the monitor with spare power unit- I want to be on safe side just in case if the power unit dies- at least I`ll have spare one around He also said if I receive faulty unit in any way he is going to cover the shipment back to Korea for replacement.