- Jan 18, 2016
If you are sensitive to vertical refresh rate then why do you need adapter with higher pixel clock?I think it is VERY understandable that we all get slightly different results towards the adapter's limits most especially since we are pushing them FAR beyond their limits ! I am actually very happy I experimented some more and discovered a resolution just a hair smaller than 2304x1440 that I can run at 83Hz. I have always been sensitive to flicker, and I can tell a world of a difference between 79 to 83Hz. Even from 80 to 83Hz I can tell the difference.
Anything beyond 1600/1920x1200 is completely pointless on CRT monitors and at 1200 lines you will hit horizontal refresh limit before you do pixel clock given current adapters eg. Delock 62967
For FW900 1920x1200@97Hz is 319MHz
If I want more refresh rate I need to lower resolution and them even with higher refresh rate pixel clock will be lower eg. 1600x1000@115Hz is 294.5MHz
Back when no converter could do 1920x1200@97Hz I was pondering at idea of using FPGA for that or even without FPGA, just using chips alone.Why is it so difficult in finding a converter that supports a high a pixel clock? Is it something with the physical chip design? Is it internal programming? I mentioned this problem the community is having finding high pixel clock converters to an electrical engineering student friend. If I can get details to what goes into a converter chip, he might be able to look into it for his graduation project.
The issue is that you need digital input chip (DP or HDMI) and then DAC chip. I found 330MHz chip which would be fine.
With FPGA I could do color correction (gamma/gamut) and it would be much preferable. Ultimately I dropped the idea when already made converters became available.
With FPGA alone I can receive about 1280x720@60Hz and output it with R2R ladder just fine but that is pretty far away from required 320MHz...