Everything You Need to Know
Trying to decide whether to go with a 144hz high-refresh-rate monitor or a 4K monitor with stunning visuals?
Generally, 144Hz monitors are better for eSports games and competitive shooters that benefit from faster, smoother frame rates, while 4K monitors are the clear choice for RPGs and other single player games that call for a more cinematic experience. Monitors that are both 144Hz and 4K are very expensive, but can be great options.
That’s the way-too-short answer. Realistically, there’s a lot more to consider.
This guide will tell you everything you know about 144hz vs 4K monitors, from performance and requirements to pure visuals and pricing.
What is 4k & What is 144 Hz?
4K refers to a 4196×2160 resolution. The 4196 refers to the to the number of horizontal pixels that are animated on screen. The 2160 refers to width of the pixels on screen. In reference to the movie industry, the TV industry and now YouTube, 4K is considered the gold standard by which they operate.
144Hz refers to the unit of frequency that a monitor refreshes. This means that 144Hz monitors refresh 144 times per second to show a new image, more than twice that of a common 60hz monitor.
144hz vs 4K Gaming
144Hz allows you to be very responsive within the context of a game. This means that there are a greater number of frames flashing before your eyes every second, giving you a faster, more accurate perception of what’s happening in real time.
For competitive gamers, 144Hz (and higher) is an elite option because that slight lag that might appear on other monitors, will not appear here and regardless of whether the image is the best, the gameplay experience is what is premium to these kinds of gamers.
60 frames per second is perfectly fine for most single-player games, regardless of pure visual quality. With 144 Hz monitors, you’re cramming even more information into every second you’re looking at a screen.
144hz may require beefier hardware or lowered graphical settings, but it will make up for it in overall visual smoothness.
Check out this slow motion side-by-side comparison to see exactly how different speeds affect real-world frames per second output:
We would always recommend 144Hz+ for games like CS:GO, Overwatch, League of Legends, Valorant, Fortnite, Apex Legends and Call of Duty: Warzone. Despite these games all having their individual game style, they all require instant input to be reflected as fast as possible on screen and if you’re competing in tournaments, a high refresh rate monitor is generally what you’d find in front of you.
Despite often compromising on pure visuals compared to some options, 144Hz monitors are usually going to be a bit pricier than a standard 60hz monitor, so consider this when going this route.
4K monitors are generally what most gamers start with and usually, they are plenty for what most gamers need. 4K gives you a gorgeous image with some caveats. While most can handle 60 frames per second (144Hz can be turned down to do 60hz as well), there are sometimes a few issues.
First off, you might get some screen tearing and for those unfamiliar with this ugly problem, it is exactly as it sounds. The image on your screen may seem as if it is tearing, creating a jarring and sometimes nauseating effect that simply doesn’t let you play the way you want, because every time you turn or look up in a game, the screen won’t be able to handle the number of frames it needs to load at that speed and the tearing will result because of it.
However, the image depicted at 30 to 60 frames per second option in most games give you a slower, but far more cinematic look at most games. The best way to describe this is the difference between soap opera mode on a TV vs. the non-smoothing option. The slight delay gives shows that dramatic effect and the 30 to 60 frames per second option in gaming gives that same effect. Combined with the gorgeous visuals that a 4K monitor will provide, this should be more than enough for most gamers.
As an enjoyer of RPG’s, the best way to experience them would almost always be a 4K monitor. The visual wonder that these games create doesn’t necessarily require those twitch reflexes you’d be using in a competitive shooter that calls for long play sessions against other players.
Occasionally, 4K monitors will have some issues with different glitches and artifacts appearing on screen, simply because of graphical fidelity needed to animate certain games. For example, games such as The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, despite coming out in 2015, still demands a fair amount of horsepower to run properly. A 4K monitor is arguably the preferred way to play, if only because it’s best way to get the paramount visual experience.
Games that require less graphic ability to work properly don’t get as much out of 4K monitors.
144 Hz monitors give you the faster, smoother gameplay experience while 4K monitors give you the better color, graphics and cinematic experience.
Definitely check out our standalone guide to all of the Pros & Cons of 144Hz Monitors to get more examples and comparisons.
Can a Monitor Support Both 4K and 144 Hz?
What of the ability to combine forces to create the perfect gaming monitor? Why can’t I have the best of both worlds and have a monitor that runs both a 4K image with a 144Hz refresh rate? The answer is that yes, you actually can find monitors like this and aforementioned 4K monitor above actually does support this.
The main drawback is that often you will spend probably double on that 4k, 144hz monitor than what you spent on your PC itself. Only the most demanding users will find that it’s worth it and those users are probably already pursuing other expensive things within the gaming world (like ray tracing). Additionally, the GPU that you’ll need to support a beast like this will be quite the expensive investment too, which brings us to our next point of contention.
System Requirements for 144hz & 4K
Right out of the box, using a normal-to-high-quality PC with a solid graphics card, a 144Hz monitor is going to be the easiest to get running. The reason is because the most common max resolution that most 144hz monitors can handle is 1440p. Most decent graphics cards are capable of doing that.
The resulting image is generally pretty great, even if they’re not reaching the breathtaking visuals of a 4K monitor.
With 4K monitors though, you need to have a graphics card that can support running 4K in games (and usually that’s going to be a fair bit more expensive). To get the respective cards to their most effective and enjoyable forms, the 4K monitor will cost you more just about every time.
As with most gaming specs go, this ultimately comes down to compromise. If you’re going to be doing marathon eSports gaming sessions until the break of dawn with your friends, you’ll want a monitor that has 144Hz refresh rate. If you’re more casual and like to sit back and explore amazing vistas in RPGs and adventure games, the 4K experience is for you.
If your system is overly dated or quite slow, it may be worth it to explore 1080p (or even 900p) options.
Panel Type & Response Time
It’s also important to understand what type of LCD panel is inside a monitor and what kind of response time that panel can achieve. The three important panel types to understand are IPS, TN, and VA.
The quick and dirty of response time is that it’s how long it takes for your monitor to respond to your input and that 99% of monitors will fall somewhere between 1ms on the fast end and 5ms on the slow end. There are some nuances, but what you really need to know is that 1ms is what you want for eSports, twitch shooters, etc. 5ms is fine for RPGs, most single player games, and general computing.
In the past, monitors capable of running 144hz were almost always TN panels. These panels often have lower-grade visuals and poor viewing angles, but are capable of faster speeds and less input lag without breaking the bank.
IPS panels are much more common in the modern monitor industry, especially for work/multimedia use. A quality IPS panel will have fantastic visuals with strong contrast and wide viewing angles. The problem is that most IPS panels are max out at 60Hz with up to 5ms response time.
Nowadays, IPS monitors with high refresh rates are becoming more and more common. Prices on these monitors are also more competitive than ever. The “best of all worlds” would generally be an IPS monitor of at least 144Hz with a 1ms response time and this is exactly what we’d recommend for the vast majority of gamers.
Note: We see a lot of people wondering if a 4ms response time is good enough for gaming and we have a guide specifically dedicated to answering that question.
VA panels are often strong competitors in terms of viewing angles and light bleed. They also have good colors, even if those colors can’t quite match top-tier IPS quality. The predominant issue with VA panels come in the form of pixel blurring during on-screen motion. This can be an instant deal breaker for competitive gamers, but there are some newer VA panels that mostly solve this problem.
Low End vs High End Monitors
Although we’ve named them to two separate categories, there is still plenty of difference when it comes to quality of each monitor. For example, a low priced, lower tech specs 144Hz monitor is not necessarily the better option over a 4K monitor. You’re going to find expensive 4K monitors that vastly outperform 144Hz options because quality of tech is ultimately very important for each.
However, when faced with two high-quality monitors, your gaming preference becomes the deciding factor when choosing between the two. If you’re someone who is running a top-of-the-line graphics card and buys all the new games the day the come out, then 4K monitors will likely be perfect for you and you won’t even wonder what the other side might be.
If you’re someone who prefers having lightning-fast response time and don’t really care whether that tree in the distance is sharp as can be and full of detail, then 144Hz monitors will be the way you’ll go and you can probably save a few bucks by sacrificing a little on visuals.
144hz vs 4K Pricing
The pricing difference between the two different kinds of monitors varies, but when it comes to the top of line of each type of monitor, the prices really are quite similar. Generally, they will vary a few hundred dollars or so between top models, though some of the bigger monitors will go even higher than that.
An Asus Rog Strix XG27UQ is about as good as it gets for an 144Hz monitor. Conversely, one of the best 4K monitors is the ASUS ROG Swift PG45UQ 43” 4K HDR DSC Gaming Monitor. There’s a decent price jump between those two, but plenty of great models are available for prices in between that range as well and the size of your monitor will greatly increase the price regardless of whether it is 144Hz or 4k.
We tend to believe that monitors 32″ and above are too big for competitive eSports gaming, but they can be great options for cinematic gaming, work, or streaming.
Was ist «geiler»? 4K oder 144Hz | Die Hardware-Community für PC-Spieler
PCIT
Freizeitschrauber(in)
-
-
-
#1
Hallo, ich möchte mir demnächst einen neuen Bildschirm zulegen (erstmal unabhängig von der Graka) und frage mich, was wohl das bessere Gaming-Erlebnis bieten wird: 4K oder 144Hz?
Möchte nicht viel mehr als 400€ hinlegen, wenn 4K dann vermutlich 28″ und wenn 144Hz vermutlich FHD 24″, vielleicht mit GSync, da aktuell und in Zukunft Nvidia. Höhenverstellbar muss der Bildschirm sein.
Redrudi
Freizeitschrauber(in)
-
-
-
-
#2
Was ist geiler..
Der eine findet 4k geiler der andere schwört auf 144Hz.Ich habe einen 27 Zoll WQHD mit 144Hz und Gsync.Bei 4K würde ich unbedingt einen Sync Moni nehmen.
JoM79
Trockeneisprofi (m/w)
-
-
-
-
#3
WQHD mit 144Hz.
amer_der_erste
BIOS-Overclocker(in)
-
-
-
-
#4
JoM79 schrieb:
WQHD mit 144Hz.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken….
So ist es!
Der beste Kompromiss zwischen Grafik und Hz!
Schleifer
Software-Overclocker(in)
-
-
-
-
#5
Hatte mir vor nem Jahr zu Testzwecken einen 27» 4K Schirm geholt (LG 27UD68P-B), da viele 4K so bejubeln. Persönliche Meinung: Na ja. Man sieht einen Unterschied, sieht auch schön aus. Ist meiner Meinung nach aber auch nicht so BÄM! Aufgrund von stark unterschiedlicher Ausleuchtung ging der wieder zurück.
Vor zwei Wochen habe ich mir dann zu Testzwecken einen 24» 144Hz Schirm geholt. Meinung: Na ja. Ja, läuft irgendwie flüssiger und ist irgendwie auch leicht angenehmer, aber jetzt meines Erachtens nicht wirklich doll. Ich spiele aber auch keine Shooter oder so. Hab nach zwei Tagen eigentlich keine Unterschiede zu 60Hz mehr wahrgenommen. Vielleicht unterbewusst, aber nicht aktiv. Auch der Bildschirm ging daher leider zurück.
Nutze nun weiterhin meinen FHD 60Hz Schirm aus 2012.
Hier im Forum laufen einige Leute rum, die 144Hz bejubeln und andere, die 4K bejubeln. Ich persönlich finde beides verschmerzbar. Im Zweifel würde ich 4K klar vorziehen. Vielleicht ist WQHD mit 144Hz wirklich das Beste, kann ich aber aus eigener Erfahrung nicht sagen.
0ssi
Guest
-
-
-
-
#6
FHD 144Hz mit 4x DSR ist natürlich am geilsten.
Incredible Alk
Moderator
-
-
-
-
#7
Am geilsten ist 4K @ 120 Hz aufm OLED.
Gibts bei Dell für rund 5000 Ocken.
Mitchpuken
Software-Overclocker(in)
-
-
-
-
#8
Kommt drauf an. Was spielst du denn? Viel oder sogar nur Shooter, dann 144hz. Keine Shooter, dann UHD. Wobei UHD mit gsync gibt es nicht bei 400€.
JoM79
Trockeneisprofi (m/w)
-
-
-
-
#9
Incredible Alk schrieb:
Am geilsten ist 4K @ 120 Hz aufm OLED.
Gibts bei Dell für rund 5000 Ocken.Zum Vergrößern anklicken….
Du weisst schon, dass der so nie erschienen ist?
Incredible Alk
Moderator
-
-
-
-
#10
Keine Ahnung ob man den kaufen konnte/kann oder nicht — ich habs aufgrund des Preises nie versucht.
Ion
Kokü-Junkie (m/w)
-
-
-
-
#11
Frag 100 User und du bekommst 100 verschiedene Antworten.
Meine Meinung: Hz>Auflösung
Denn letzteres lässt sich per DSR/VSR «künstlich» in die Höhe treiben. Mehr Hz wird schwierig
Thoddeleru
Freizeitschrauber(in)
-
-
-
-
#12
Du brauchst auch entsprechende Hardware für 4K. Selbst ne 1080Ti schafft da bei höchsten Einstellungen oft keine 60 FPS.
Gesendet von meinem XT1650 mit Tapatalk
Incredible Alk
Moderator
-
-
-
-
#13
Thoddeleru schrieb:
Du brauchst auch entsprechende Hardware für 4K. Selbst ne 1080Ti schafft da bei höchsten Einstellungen oft keine 60 FPS.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken….
Die frage ist, ob man immer die höchsten Einstellungen haben muss.
Glaub mir, Hoch auf 4K sieht Welten besser aus als Ultra auf WQHD. Beides ist mit ner 1080Ti kein Thema mit 60+ fps.
Dass man sowas nicht mit ner 200€-GPU hinbekommt ist natürlich klar.
RtZk
Lötkolbengott/-göttin
-
-
-
-
#14
Thoddeleru schrieb:
Du brauchst auch entsprechende Hardware für 4K. Selbst ne 1080Ti schafft da bei höchsten Einstellungen oft keine 60 FPS.
Gesendet von meinem XT1650 mit Tapatalk
Zum Vergrößern anklicken….
Er hat eine Titan X, die ist bei gleichem Takt nicht schneller als eine Ti , lediglich die Titan Xp ist dann rund 5% schneller für rund 1300€ kann man da ein wahres Schnäppchen machen.
@TE wer nie 144hz gesehen oder selbst benutzt hat wird es auch nicht vermissen
JoM79
Trockeneisprofi (m/w)
-
-
-
-
#15
RtZk schrieb:
wer nie 144hz gesehen oder selbst benutzt hat wird es auch nicht vermissen
Zum Vergrößern anklicken. …
Gilt auch für 4K.
Rwk
Freizeitschrauber(in)
-
-
-
#16
Geschmacksache…für mich auf jeden Fall 1440p@144Hz!
Gaming 4K versus 144 Hz on the example of AOC and Philips monitors
You are not a rich person, but an enthusiastic gamer. You are sick of being smeared with mods for Skyrim, and 1080p60FPS is already boring. You need a step forward, and you step forward into a computer hardware store. But on your way you meet two chairs. On one 4K chiseled, on the second 144 Hz twisted. Both chairs require a good graphics card, at least a GTX 1060 3GB, more on that later. But if the GPU is clear, then how to choose between 4K and a high-frequency monitor?
Consider this a preview of how well mid-budget systems can handle 144Hz and 4K. But comparing them is already interesting now, because by demanding approximately the same performance from the system, you get completely different results in terms of stability.
1. Trouble at 144 Hz
2. A lot of pixels, a lot of problems
3. What threatens
4. Conclusions
Trouble at 144 Hz
you need a video card with powerful stuffing, including more frequency, better memory type, cooler channel width and overall performance. The least important parameter is the amount of video memory — for a simple reason. We are now talking about how to play at high frequencies with a minimal budget.
And in this case, you will have to choose between the maximum settings and high FPS. We choose the first one, so we don’t worry about the clogged video memory — 3 GB is enough. And for 95% of the games on the market, 2 GB is enough, but 3 is 3, who are we to complain. The catch in the case of high-frequency monitors is also that we need not only a good video card, but also a high-frequency processor, no less than an overclocked Core i5. Otherwise, the GPU will simply idle part of the time, draining power down the toilet. We don’t need this.
Read also: AOC G2460PF monitor review – the most affordable 144Hz on the market!
A lot of pixels, a lot of problems
In the case of 4K, everything is almost in the opposite direction. The amount of video memory is of interest to us in the first place, since the system simply needs to draw a picture 4 times larger in area. The relationship is not linear, but noticeable. The dependence on processor power also disappears, since in 4K the video card is squeezed to zero, being most often the “bottleneck” of the system and not keeping up with the rest of the components.
What threatens
Both high refresh rates and high resolution are similar in terms of graphics card power requirements. The main difference lies in how it feels … the lack of this very power. In the case of 144 Hz, we are interested in getting as high FPS as possible at one resolution. And if the PC is not able to squeeze out at least 144 FPS — and this is necessary so that there are no frame drops noticeable to the trained eye — the frame counter will STILL remain at a level that is quite playable.
That is, if your favorite PC game does not pull in 144 FPS even at the minimum settings in FullHD, if it is only enough for 100 FPS, you will still feel the horror of how smooth the gameplay is. And you will barely feel the drawdown from 144 FPS to 100 FPS. And in single player games, you will most likely not care at all. You will benefit even if the system does not fully implement 144Hz.
See also: a review of the 32-inch 4K monitor PHILIPS Brilliance 328P6VJEB
4K is more difficult, an example is Philips Brilliance 272P7v. By increasing the resolution, we most often sacrifice either graphics settings or FPS levels. And the trouble is, if your game looks beautiful in 4K, but is too demanding, you will end up with an unplayable frame rate. That is, you can enjoy the game, but it will be a slideshow. It seems that you can go down to 2K, but in this case the picture will be slightly blurry, and therefore ugly.
On the other hand, if you want 4K and consistently high (or, in the context of this material, at least average) FPS, you will have to sacrifice graphics quality. But here’s the problem — if at the minimum graphics at 144 Hz the game still looks more realistic and pleasant due to the smoothness of the animation, then in 4K with shitty graphics all the shortcomings of this very graphics will not just be obvious, they will be 4 times more clearly visible. And from an aesthetic point of view, this is a salicide. Or rather, suicide. Maybe even suicide by suicide. The choice is yours.
Conclusions
My choice in this battle of the titans of budget gaming technology falls on the side of 144 Hz. Just because of the more stable result. If you don’t have enough power for your favorite game at 144 FPS, you can still play with more comfort. If you do not have enough power for 4K resolution, then you will not do anything, and you will have to choose the lesser of two evils. And about how the GTX 1060 3GB (kindly provided by the Kiev-IT store) behaves in the experiments I announced, I will tell you a little later. Stay tuned!
DP, HDMI, USB-C Alt-Mode & cables…
Lydybr: I recently upgraded myself a bit and got a 4k@144Hz monitor. Of course , at 144Hz it did not work with half a kick. And with a bunch of laptops and USB-C cables, too. Because are nuances of . I had to dive deeper into this than I would have liked…
My old video card on the computer managed to get it running at 4k @ 60Hz using Display Port. (Either 2k @ 144Hz). I tried plugging a laptop into the monitor (all 5 pieces that I and my friends found) and found that everything was so complicated that it took me several visits to read the specification until I «started it». I write down my observations and experiments. Relevance — the first half of 2022. Monitor under study: Gigabyte M32U, although, in principle, this is not essential for the issue under discussion. The monitor has HDMI, DisplayPort (2 pcs), USB-C connectors. Despite the fact that with the desktop my problem was solved «just updating the hardware», I decided to deal with the problem in more depth in order to know.
I will analyze the problem in layers. Let’s start with physics and cables.
Physics
4k (3840×2160) at 144Hz at a depth of 1 byte per color (24 bits per pixel) requires a minimum of 28665446400 bits per second ( 3840*2160*3*8*144
), that is, about 30 gigabits / s, and that’s not counting the overhead of encoding (either 8/10 or 128/130), audio stream, USB for connecting peripherals, etc. Any cables that run less will not work for us. More precisely, if we compress the transmitted signal, we can «crawl» into 20Gbps, but our first guess: 20 Gbps is not enough. About compression — see the section at the end.
Since the situation is very bad, we will also consider 120Hz as acceptable instead of 144Hz, that is, 23 Gbps.
What cables can give us so much (we don’t look at protocols)
Cables
-
HDMI 2.0cable gives 18.0 Gbit/s. Such a cable cannot exceed 90 Hz. Cable names (that don’t work):Standard HDMI Cable,High Speed HDMI,Premium High Speed HDMI -
HDMI 2.1 has a subset of cables codenamed Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable ( UHS ), which are capable of 48 Gbit/s. Other names are Category 3 HDMI, HDMI 8k, HDMI 48G.
-
Old generation Display Port cables:
RBR (reduced bit rate),HBR, HBR2 (High Bitrate). Other names:Standard DisplayPort Cable,Full HD. -
High Bitrate 3 ( HBR3 ) is capable of 32.4 Gbit/s. Up to 120Hz. (144Hz in compression mode). Other names: DP4k .
-
UHBR 10, 13.5 and 20 (Ultra High Bit Rate) Came with display port 2.0. Gives 40-80 Gbit / s. Our native 144Hz without frills. Alternative name: DP8k.
-
USB-C cableUSB3 — not even close. -
USB-C cable USB4. A bunch of cables of different speeds, all (except what doesn’t fit below)
USB4 Gen 2×1,USB4 Gen 2×2 (?),USB4 Gen 3×1. -
USB-C cable USB4 Gen 3×2 . It has 40 Gbps. Please note that all other USB4 cables will not work (I’m not sure about USB4 Gen 2×2, there is only 20Gb / s, which may be enough for 120Hz with compression)
-
Thunderbolt 3 cable 40Gbit/s should work, but…I don’t know if it works or not. TB3 itself promises DP 1.2 which is just «(3840×2160) at 120 Hz». Tolerable.
-
Thunderbolt 4 cable definitely works because 40Gbit/s, and there is DP 2. 0 as standard.
Note that I did not touch the issue with power delivery == PD (not to be confused with DP == Display Port) at all, this is a separate orthogonal task. Although the cable that over USB-C makes PD is a dream for connecting a laptop. I stuck one cable — and the finished docking station. However, according to the Thunderbolt 4 standard, power delivery can be as low as 18W. As I have found, many powered laptops are all-or-nothing, that is, 18W does not charge even in sleep. MacBooks are a rare exception. But this is all offtopic — we want 4k@144…
Bottom line: Anything not listed above will either not work, or will work weird (dropping signal), or will work at low frequencies (< 100Hz).
So, in general, an unmarked USB-C cable is most likely not suitable.
Lydybr. Given the price of correct cables, it is obvious that all the usb-c cables in my household, bought for phones, turned out to be completely far from the world of ‘USB4 Gen 3×2’, which explained most of my failures at the beginning.
Purchase of cables
Supervision of cables in stores.
Finding the right DP cable is easy. Finding the right HDMI cable… is relatively easy. But USB-C — that’s where the madness is.
First, as mentioned above, USB-C comes in a bunch of versions. Many are USB3, ie. video signal transmission is not suitable at all. Even if you find a USB4 cable, there are a huge number of them and most of them are not suitable. The official name of the required cable is «Gen 3×2», good luck to you to break through the store search engines with this. And most of what was found is 0.8m, because this is the maximum length of a passive cable, as far as I understand. Longer cable — you need chips in the cable, which dramatically increases the price and narrows the range.
And I’m not talking about Ali (where there is dog madness in the description of males), but about many noble stores, Amazon, computeruniverse, and local computer stores in Cyprus. Probably, this is not better in other stores.
With great difficulty, I found the right names, and their price… Impressed. As a result, I settled on an active certified Thunderbolt 4 cable for €50 . It’s a little overkill, but it’s definitely all there and all is well. A non-overkill with slightly more modest specs was around for €38, plus €18 shipping…
But! This cable is working. I saw honest 4k @ 144Hz on the only laptop available.
Cables sorted out. Next come the protocols.
Protocols
We have a choice of two: HDMI and DP, but it’s complicated by the fact that both of them can end up inside a USB-C cable.
HDMI
Specification says:
-
HDMI 1.4 : 4k @ 30Hz.
-
HDMI 2.0: 4k @ 60 Hz
-
HDMI 2.1: 4k@120Hz.
What about 144 Hz? But no way. Oops… So HDMI, even in bleeding edge mode (as of 22) can’t show what you want. Although, 120Hz, in general, is almost enough. Thus, for «barely» we need HDMI 2. 1 and not lower. At 2.0 we get the «regular 60Hz», and the «old HDMI» will show us a 30Hz nightmare. While the cable is capable, the standard has not mastered it.
Lydybr : which, in fact, turned out to be in the USB-C -> HDMI adapter that I had. Inside HDMI 1.4. Enjoy your 30 out of 144.
It turned out that everything is more complicated and HDMI 2.1 has some differences. See comments.
Display Port
Display Port much more advanced technology:
-
Display Port 1.0, «HBR» mode: 4k @ 30Hz.
-
Display Port 1.2, «HBR2» mode: 4k @ 75 Hz (suddenly!)
-
Display Port 1.3, «HBR3» mode: 4k @ 120Hz (almost…)
Display Port
- 9004 , mode «HBR3 4k @ 120Hz, but there is DSC or YCrBr 4:2:0, which should theoretically give 144 Hz…
-
Display Port 2.0, UBHR10 mode: 4k @ 144Hz, UBR20: 4k @ 240Hz. Even the flight.
In total, the Display port in version 1. 3 is «barely» the same as HDMI 2.1. Version 1.4a is minimal, and version 2.0 is what we need.
Thunderbolt
Thunderbolt itself is not our concern, but it supports some interesting video modes.
Thunderbolt 3 has three interface modes: DP (it’s not a display port!), SP, and LP. Which one you get is a mystery. The main thing is that inside there can be Display Port 1.2 or Display Port 1.4. The combination of support from the cable side and from the host side is a pure lottery. In the context of 4k @ 120Hz, I would not hope for the performance of Thunderbolt 3 ports.
Thunderbolt 4 has dramatically improved the situation: we can already be sure about Display Port 1.4, and maybe we will get Display Port 2.0 in alt-mode.
USB-C
I specifically named this section wrong (because it’s not a protocol, it’s a connector), because all USB-C is crazy. If TB3/4 is explicitly labeled, then USB-C is a disaster.
I think the usb-c cable should have been changed to ‘ a cable ‘ a long time ago to make it sound like this: ‘a monitor is connected to a computer using a cable’. Or like this: ‘this device uses a cable’. Because USB, in addition to USB itself, has a so-called ‘alt mode’, which allows you to pass analog sound, Display Port, Hdmi, hell in a mortar and even USB through the cable.
In spite of all my searching, I couldn’t find USB4 Gen 3×2 anywhere. for «connoisseurs» there is TB with simple versions.
Alt-mode-madness
From the madness above, we are interested in the following protocols:
Question: what is implemented inside the monitor? Either USB4, and then there is DP 2.0 (hooray!), Or HDMI 2.1 (alas!), or there is TB, and in fact there is hell in the mortar (DP from 1.2 to 2.0).
It may be that both protocols are implemented there, but the video card decides?
My monitor spec says:
HDMI 2.1 (support 4K 144Hz 4:4:4 @ DSC enabled or 4K 144Hz 4:2:0) x2
Display port 1. 4 (DSC) x1
USB Type-C x1
This is what the manufacturer promises us. Not a word about the contents of USB Type-C. Is it at least USB4?
After a practical experiment, my laptop said that the USB-C monitor is DP-0. So DisplayPort. I don’t know a method to understand which option is used — alt mode or native protocol.
But it is impossible to understand from the monitor specification before purchase that there will be DP inside USB-C.
Host
Host is what makes the signal. Discrete graphics card, laptop or active adapter.
Laptops
With laptops (for which USB-C is intended) it becomes almost impossible to figure out what exactly it can do.
The description of one of the laptops says:
* Thunderbolt 4/USB-C 4.0 Gen3×2 (DisplayPort 1.a: yes, Power Delivery: yes*)
* USB-C 3.2 Gen2×2
What is DisplayPort 1.a? Between 1.2a and 1.4a there is a border between success and hopelessness. .. Although Thunderbolt 4 was promised, and it should be DisplayPort 2.0… (not 4).
… When a certified Thunderbolt 4 cable came to me, it turned out that there was some kind of hack inside the laptop and the monitor with it gets 144 Hz (hooray!) But loses it almost immediately. So dp was indeed «1.a».
Here is another laptop:
One USB 3.0 (Type-C) port
Thunderbolt 3 (USB Type-C) port
One HDMI 2.0 port
One Mini DisplayPort 1.2
walk from 1.2 to 1.4. However, mini-DP 1.2 is mentioned nearby, so inside there will most likely be DP 1.2, that is, «nothing more than 75 Hz shines.»
And here is the third one:
Ports
(2) Intel® Thunderbolt™ 3 (Type-C)
(2) USB 3.1 Gen 1 (Type A)
(1) HDMI 2.0
Thunderbolt 3 again without specifying what’s inside.
It turns out that it is generally impossible to understand from the paper whether it will work or not. Pain? Pain!
Although with a certified TB4 cable, he still gave out honest 144 Hz. Unfortunately, this is not my laptop, it is on Windows, so it is impossible to understand what exactly is there in the xrandr output, because Windows. Maybe it’s DP 1.4? Intel promises this in some processors/integrated video cards. The monitor says that this is a USB-C input, and what’s inside — the jester knows it.
Viewing protocol versions from a host
But, can we determine something about the protocol version in the cable from Linux? In general, my look-n-feel regarding cables in Linux left an unpleasant feeling of «nothing is clear», but that’s until I looked at how the same problems look in Windows. If in Linux it is difficult to answer «why there is no such mode in the monitor settings», then in Windows it is impossible to even see a list of all monitor modes, and the monitor connection mode (via USB-C) is not clear. Is it DP or HDMI? On Linux this is detected by the display type in xrandr — HDMI-0
vs DP-0
.
I also found that nvidia-settings can tell you a little about Display Port.
DP, 2 lanes @ 5.4 -> HBR2, Display Port 1.2 (source: wikipedia)
I don’t understand where she gets it from, even from strace. Fun fact: HBR2 should give me 4k@75hz. The 4k@60Hz limit is a chip limit on my old graphics card.
Discrete video cards
My old video card showed a 60Hz limit (in practice and in specs):
Maximum DP resolution: 4096 x 2160 @ 60 Hz
Maximum DVI resolution: 2560 x 1600
Maximum HDMI resolution: 4096 x 2160 @ 24 Hz or 3840 x 2160 @ 30 Hz
We take a kilo of money, bring it to the seller and find out that…
Nvidia RTX 30 seriesAMD RX 6900 XT — 6600 XTIntel Arc according to Intel Ark
That’s it. Of the three vendors, only the most suffocating can DP 2.0. The rest huddle in a category that we have rejected or almost rejected. The monitor is able, the video card is not.
On the other hand, the magical YCbCr420 and DSC are waiting for us. .. But more on that below.
In the meantime, it turns out that in this meager mode, you either have to slow down at 120Hz (instead of 144Hz), or hope that DSC (compression) is really invisible. AMD promises RDNA3 somewhere in March 2022, and now April is ending…
It would seem that we should take Arc, but it is only in laptops, but we saw 144 Hz in laptops even without the help of arc. And there is no discrete version of Arc.
At the end, the balance of reason won with prices going down, and I became the owner of a modest RX 6600 (without any «XT») for a modest €350. Plus €28 shipping. Damn Cyprus. But with the price, I waited and waited and waited. Three months ago, the same modesty would have cost me €500, and half a year ago — €750.
The video card arrived, xrand -r 144
and everything was fine, fast and smart. Just a DP8k cable (I don’t know which one is UHBR). How it crawled into DP 1.4, and even into 10 bits (according to xrandr —verbose), I don’t understand. Apparently DSC. Where to watch the status of DSC, I have not yet found.
Perversions
While I was waiting for a video card, I decided to squeeze the impossible out of my hardware and try non-standard approaches. Many of them didn’t work, but PBP did.
PBP mode
There is such a perversion — PBP. When the monitor divides the screen into two halves and each half shows a picture from its signal source. In general, the monitor can be connected to two computers and viewed from both of them, but a special case is to connect the monitor with two cables to one computer
It would seem that cheers. But my (old) video card does not like to work in this mode, and gives only 60Hz. Moreover, HDMI in this mode is completely furious and gives only this:
1920×2160 59.93*+
1280×1024 75.02 60.02
1280×960 60.00
…
There is a theoretical possibility, but in practice: 1) It does not work on Nvidia due to fascism in the drivers. 2) It works on Intel (laptop), but it requires two wires to connect and non-trivial manipulations in the monitor and xrandr settings, which is extremely far from ‘plug and play’.
After a long meditative reading, I found information that Nvidia can be «persuaded» not to focus on EDID’e (the data that the monitor gives).
This construct worked for me: (`/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/nvidia.conf`)
Section "Device" Identifier "Device0" Driver "nvidia" VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation" Option "ModeValidation" "AllowNonEdidModes,NoDisplayPortBandwidthCheck,NoVirtualSizeCheck,NoMaxPClkCheck,NoHorizSyncCheck,NoVertRefreshCheck,NoWidthAlignmentCheck" EndSection
After that, I managed to do the impossible — I made HDMI (the old, old HDMI, which barely knows 4k@30Hz), make this «half» resolution work at 75Hz. DP also agreed. Maybe more DP, but my old, old video card only has one DP, so I had to limit it to 75Hz too. The output was 4k@75Hz and fantastic nonsense in the text console on boot (when the video is repeated twice on the left and right half of the screen). I must say that 75Hz is the limit. Even 76 are not accepted.
xrandr rightly considers that these are two monitors and broadcasts this to the window manager. After that, we have the taskbar on only one half of the screen, and the windows «stick» to the middle, as they usually stick to the edges. And the login window is in half of the screen, and jumps between the left-right halves, depending on the position of the mouse cursor.
The internet has suggested that xrandr can be told that «two outputs make one monitor».
xrandr --setmonitor chimera auto HDMI-0,DP-1
But as it turns out, the ‘monitor’ abstraction has no consequences. So pass.
Just in case, here is my PBP configuration script for DP-1 and HDMI-0:
xrandr --newmode "1920x2160x75" 335.7 1920 1928 1960 2000 2160 2224 2232 2238 +HSync -VSync xrandr --output DP-1 --mode 1920x2160x75 xrandr --output HDMI-0 --mode 1920x2160x75
Result: 75Hz and crazy windows that can’t even be expanded properly in fullscreen?
I recorded a victory over specifications and common sense, but this post was written in normal DP mode (4k@60Hz).
Compression
DSC in Display Port promises signal compression and the ability to push 144 Hz through DP 1. 4. Unfortunately, my old video card could not do this.
The second suggestion is to reduce the quality of the picture due to another sub-sampling. In x, sub-sampling is configured in the config (not xrandr). In the config above, you need to add:
Option "ColorSpace" "YCbCr444"
Only YCbCr444 does not have the effect of reducing the bandwidth used. For this you need YCbCr420. And to this my video card says ‘unsupported mode’. Although, probably, on a newer device it will be better.
On the new RX 6600, I didn’t find how to find out what exactly is on, that I have 144Hz through DP 1.4 … Moreover, I was promised that DSC would not be noticeable, but the combination of redshift and 144Hz started to give a very strange artifacts. Most often they are almost invisible, but in those moments when they appear, there is a feeling of «Is it glitches on my screen or?», Because the artifacts suspiciously resemble chromatic aberrations from glasses on contrasting patterns.
Is it worth it?
Why do I need 144Hz? Especially at 4K? Of course, is not for toys .
I started with a 13″ EGA. After a few iterations, the CRT became an LCD.
As the screen inches grew, I couldn’t help feeling that everything used to be faster (or, as I can put it now, «smoother»). «).
I thought about this problem for a long time and realized that it is objective, and not related to gigahertz or bloatware on the computer.
If we have 60 frames per second, then the larger (physically) the screen, the more centimeters pass between two adjacent frames when something moves across the screen, and with the transition to 4k — and in pixels too.0003
This results in a jerky picture in the most basic everyday tasks — text editing, window movement, scrolling, typing response time.
So I made myself 4k@144 … for office work. Comfortable office work. And absolutely, I don’t regret it for a second. The transition from the old processor to the new one was pleasant, and subjectively, I would say that the computer became one and a half times faster and the stopped slowing down.