OnasiThis is impressively wasteful of them. Going to the trouble to implement and certify DP 2.1 only to then stick to the most useless bandwidth level the UHBR provides. Sure, running at 144Hz without DSC is a benefit… to someone, I guess, but seriously, either go full way for the UHBR20 to ensure long-term compatibility (and obviously give an option to turn off DSC when the consumer level cards with a sufficient port arrive) or just do what most others have done and stick with 1.4 and DSC. This half-measure is just stupid.
But I am almost 100% sure that they have done it solely to advertise the screen as having DP 2.1. Most customers are completely unaware of how the standard works and of different UHBR levels. Hell, as recent discussions on this very site show, most ENTHUSIASTS are not aware of them and mostly operate on “2.1 good, 1.4 and DSC bad, why no 2.1”.

TheLostSwedeThis is exactly what happened with HDMI though, loads of TVs out there that doesn't support 48 Gbps FRL6, but instead end up at 40 Gbps FRL5. Less of an issue in this case though, as 40 Gbps is still good enough for 120 Hz.

OnasiInteresting. Was this due to higher licensing fees or was the higher bandwidth ports/cables/scalers just more costly, as is the case with DP?

TheLostSwedeCost of custom ASICs to drive it I believe.

TheLostSwedeCost of custom ASICs to drive it I believe.

Here's an example.
www.notebookcheck.net/Samsung-s-S95C-QD-OLED-TVs-discovered-to-feature-HDMI-2-1-ports-with-40-Gbps-bandwidth-instead-of-48-Gbps.734250.0.html

OnasiThis is impressively wasteful of them. Going to the trouble to implement and certify DP 2.1 only to then stick to the most useless bandwidth level the UHBR provides.

Onasihigher licensing fees

trsttteDisplayPort doesn't have one.

trsttteNot really, it's sad but UHBR10 is still a massive bandwidth increase over DP1.4. Like seriously, it's a jump from ~25.9gbps to ~38.7gbps, HDMI 2.1 only goes to about 42gbps.

dir_dI wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

dir_dI wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD Vesa dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

kongait's probably expensive

Ferrum MasterThat's just Samsung. They use their own CPU while others mostly use Mediatek Pentonic, not sure we can call it custom, it is a plain SoC, only FW differs for each maker. Not only that Samsung now mish mashes gens of their CPU offering the best one only in certain bleeding edge models... the heck Samsung this year even doesn't disclose either the their entry/mid ranger TV model is Their QD or LG OLED, the model number is same and it could be both.

dir_dI wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

TheLostSwedeHere's an example.

OnasiThanks. Seemingly the same story with DP 2.1 at 80Gbps. Industry sources, at least, told tftcentral that scalers and their components become really expensive at that point, developing one in-house is even more expensive and there aren’t really ready-made options galore so far. NV certainly is in no hurry to update their GSync FPGA to 2.1, for example.

Ferrum MasterThat's just Samsung. They use their own CPU while others mostly use Mediatek Pentonic, not sure we can call it custom, it is a plain SoC, only FW differs for each maker. Not only that Samsung now mish mashes gens of their CPU offering the best one only in certain bleeding edge models... the heck Samsung this year even doesn't disclose either the their entry/mid ranger TV model is Their QD or LG OLED, the model number is same and it could be both.

trsttteNot really, it's sad but UHBR10 is still a massive bandwidth increase over DP1.4. Like seriously, it's a jump from ~25.9gbps to ~38.7gbps, HDMI 2.1 only goes to about 42gbps.

dir_dI wonder what's going on, why are there no DP 2.1a scalers. I wonder if there's something wrong with the prototypes like active cooling needed. Or if companies are just being stingy with their money and waiting for "someone else" to create one so they can use it. Or Nvidia or AMD dragging their feat to certify one. Just all speculation on my behalf but it is weird.

TheLostSwedeLG and Sony had similar issues with earlier 4K 120 Hz input displays though.

Tek-CheckNot series 9 from 2019. I have C9 with 48 Gbps ports, their in-house IC with HAWK2 chip. That series was the world's first full speed IC on all four ports.

dir_d@TheLostSwede I see our update, this is sort of similar to the Geforce Ultimate debacle. $200 for the use of 1x DP 2.1a is over the top, now we know why it has not been used. I understand DSC is not quite as good as native but ill definitely take DSC over a $200 premium.

TheLostSwedeI think that was the only one though, some of their "lesser" models had limitations.

TheLostSwedeIt has two DP 2.1 inputs, one full size and one mini DP. So $100 per port... :rolleyes:

trsttteWhy did they bother with DP out though? It's great and I would love if more monitors had one but they're obviously targeting this at gamers prioritizing DP 2.1 for the DP inputs instead of the USB-C and the daisy chain out that would need it a lot more. And how does that DP output work, given it's a lower spec than the inputs, will it work for the USB-C or downgrade the other inputs when used?