RealNC wrote:Black Octagon wrote:RealNC wrote:Nope, they didn't remove it. I can't raise the pixel clock above 165MHz (66Hz) without using the ToastyX patcher, and I'm using a 780 with latest drivers.
On what monitor and what type of DVI?
It's a Samsung XL2370 (a 1080p 60Hz monitor.) That means SL-DVI. And NVidia's page specifically mentions 60Hz monitors, which don't need, and therefore don't use, DL-DVI. They claim you can run your 60Hz monitor at 80Hz. Well, how's that supposed to work? 60Hz monitors use SL-DVI and NVidia forgot to remove the 165MHz limit?
My understanding was that ToastyX's patch was only ever for Dual Link DVI (for which no limit ever existed in the standard). SL-DVI on the other hand has a built in 165MHz limit as was agreed when the DVI standard was first made
ToastyX's patcher unlocks both the SL-DVI as well as DL-DVI limits. Overclocking is about exceeding the specs. When they claim that the driver allows you to OC your 60Hz monitor without external tools, then the only sane interpretation of that statement is that it allows you to OC your SL-DVI link.
That's what overclocking *is*.
Ok, let me explain what I mean - and I may very well be wrong - by first pointing you to the following:
1)
http://www.monitortests.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3
2)
http://overlordforum.com/topic/68-toastys-expert-post/
From these I have always understood the following:
- the patcher is not about SL-DVI, only DL...where did you get the notion that the patcher does anything at all to SL-DVI?
- the 165MHz pixel clock limit for SL is about more than just GPU drivers. It's a physical limit of SL-DVI cables, ports as required by the DVI standard and so one that software alone cannot overcome
- the existence of a 165MHz limit for SL-DVI has provoked the incorrect assumption that 'dual link' DVI must have a pixel clock limit of 330MHz (165 x 2) but this is absolutely false, as stated by ToastyX and as proven by the success of his patcher
- this misunderstanding about the (physical) limits of DL-DVI could even be a reason why AMD/NV saw fit to put a 330MHz pixel clock limit on their drivers
So, the point is that SL-DVI has limits that come direct from the DVI standard. DL-DVI, on the other hand, is only really limited to 330MHz by unnecessary limitations in GPU drivers (I.e., in physical terms, DL-DVI can handle a fair bit more).
For this reason, getting around the 165Mhz pixel clock limit of SL-DVI is not about driver limitations. To test whether a 1080/1200p monitor can be OC'd beyond 60Hz, regardless of whether the GPU uses Boost, 2.0, it is essential that the monitor in question is connected via an interface that is 'not SL-DVI.' I imagine DisplayPort would be an ideal candidate (or possibly HDMI, though that interface has its own limitations).
Again, very happy to be corrected here. Hoping ToastyX himself reads these boards from time to time and can chime in.
Sent from dumbphone (pls excuse typos and dumbness)