Originally Posted by vegeto626
Thanks for all the info and help everyone. I was able to get to 110/112 Hz without artifacting (120 gives me horizontal green lines) using the tightened timings with no frame skipping on R290x. However I noticed that there faint vertical scan lines across the whole screen. This is not noticeable most of the time, but when there is some blue on the screen it is easier to see. I also sometimes notice it when I game. It's acceptable as it is barely noticeable, but it bugs me that it isn't perfect. Keeping it at 96Hz doesn't have this problem.
Any suggestions on how to resolve this? I have tried the following:
1. Tightened timings, even tighter than in OP
2. All variations of the polarity
3. Standard and reduced default timings.
4. DVI frequency change in CCC
5. Overclocking my R290x a bit (+150mHz)
6. Removed drivers and reset refresh rates (DDU/CRU) and updated to latest beta drivers.
Any suggestions? I am reluctant to try a new cable because this one seems to work fine and reading the owner thread looks like most people have success with the stock cable. Very few and far in between are there ones that have more success with another cable.
I bought a massively thick 24awg cable
, got a new power brick that runs cooler and is rated for 72w/6A instead of 56w/5A http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00W5BNZR2
, and I also set timings as low as possible and tried everything aside from debezeling and putting some heatsinks on the PCB. All just to get 120Hz without artifacts or image retention.
But in the end, anything around 110Hz and up has MASSIVE image retention. Forget the color and gamma correction, forget not syncing up to 23.976/24fps media, forget all of that. The Image retention is so bad that it's a deal breaker. Of course it's not permanent with these QNIX panels, but in less than 5 minutes of having a window open, it will burn it in to your screen so bad that you can literally read what it says 10 minutes after you close it. 96Hz vs 60Hz was MASSIVE, but due to the motion blur, the difference between 96Hz and 120Hz on these monitors is greatly diminished from what it could be. Motion blur and image retention limit practical use to somewhere below 110Hz, but that doesn't align with 24fps content. 108Hz is half way inbetween... but it still has some image retention that 96Hz just doesn't have that bad. I still occasionally game at 120Hz, and it's nice.... but not enough more to bother.
I feel like a pleb saying that too, I literally just killed my GPU in the pursuit of performance by sticking heatsinks where they don't belong. I'm going to debezel this QNIX and put some heatsinks on it too to see if it lessens the image retention. I've delidded everything and lapped my coolers, I go the extra mile just for a little more performance and do all kinds of crazy things. I'm not buying capacitors taht are of higher quality to replace the ones I killed on my GPU just to see if it will make a difference. So trust me when I say "this extra performance is not worth the price" in this case.
If the answer changes when I get around to adding a heatsink on the back of the monitor then I'll be sure to post about it.
So run at 96Hz, go to lagom.nl and calibrate your monitor by eyeball.
I've looked at every ICC profile for this monitor I could find but it doesn't fix the gamma. Once you fix that it feels like a whole new monitor. I need R1.21, G1.25, B1.20. (7 clicks down from max brightness).
Oh, and if you do decide to keep messing around with higher refresh rates I don't blame you at all, it's fun. Take this for the image retention. http://www.jscreenfix.com/screensaver.html Edited by cookieboyeli - 1/16/16 at 12:36am