<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - 4k monitor edid rejected: EDID timing clock 297.00 exceeds claimed max 115MHz, fixing" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82102#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - 4k monitor edid rejected: EDID timing clock 297.00 exceeds claimed max 115MHz, fixing" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82102">bug 82102</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:wolfgang.rupprecht@gmail.com" title="Wolfgang Rupprecht <wolfgang.rupprecht@gmail.com>"> Wolfgang Rupprecht</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=82102#c8">comment #8</a>) > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=82102#c7">comment #7</a>) > > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=82102#c6">comment #6</a>) > > > You GPU does not support 4k over HDMI. > > The specs at AMD claim this GPU does HDMI 1.4a 2 lanes of 340 Mhz dot clock > > each for a total of 640 Mhz. Even if only one lane is populated on this > > card, that should still be 340 Mhz. The modeline only asks for 297 Mhz. > Where to they claim that? I think you've been successfully fooled by the > HDMI forum, which allows anyone to implement some boring subfeatures noone > is interested in and leave out the only thing important, namely higher > frequencies, and still claiming newer standards (1.4 in this case) > compliance regardless (for receiver devices which don't have such a high > resolution this actually even makes sense). The spec sheet at the URL you quote below mentions HDMI 1.4a. Although I can see how they might be skirting the truth about HDMI 1.4 compliance. Are there any GPU's and/or cards that are known to display 4k at 30hz or above under X?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>