zuwvcfxanh

3 ms·

1.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
That's only true at 8 bits per channel though, which is not what this monitor is. Otherwise yes, you're right
2.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
It's not commonly found on monitors. DSC is included starting with DisplayPort 1.4, and a good portion of monitors even today still ship with DP 1.2 Nvidia and AMD have not been shipping DSC with HDMI simply because HDMI included DSC s
3.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
DisplayPort 1.2 cannot even do 5k at 60Hz at 10 bits per channel. You might be thinking about DisplayPort 2.0, which is not yet widely supported in video cards or monitors, and even then it needs the (essentially non-existent) UHBR 20 data
4.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
I made this comment elsewhere, but all I really want is a 96x2 PPI monitor because I'm mainly on Windows and that's what widgets look their best at. 24", 3840x2560 (for 96 x 2 PPI, 3:2 aspect ratio), 120Hz, 10 bits per color,
5.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
A portion of that could be related to lack of protocol support. 5k at 60Hz is more bandwidth that HDMI or DisplayPort could provide until very recently. Apple got around it by essentially making it two separate displays bound together in so
6.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
I've been waiting for basically the same thing in 3:2 or 16:10 although I'd settle for 4K, given real-world constraints. For what it's worth, that's a tremendous amount of bandwidth that even _new_ protocols such as HDMI
7.
by zuwvcfxanh 5y ago
All I really want is a 96x2 PPI monitor because I'm mainly on Windows and that's what widgets look their best at. 24", 3840x2560 (for 96 x 2 PPI, 3:2 aspect ratio), 120Hz, 10 bits per color, topping out bandwidth at exactly t