NVIDIA RTX 4090 with Odyssey Neo G9 gaming monitor is limited
At this year’s ChinaJoy, Samsung unveiled the illustrious Odyssey Neo G9 gaming monitor, a majestic creation equivalent to the fusion of two 32-inch displays, delivering a dual 4K high-refresh pinnacle. This masterpiece boasts a 57-inch curved screen, augmented by Mini LED backlighting technology and QLED quantum dot prowess. With a curvature of 1000R, a 10bit color depth, a display aspect of 32:9, a resolution of dual 4K (7680 x 2160), a refresh rate of 240Hz, and a response time (GtG) of a mere 1ms, its luminance reaches a peak of 1000 nits.
As reported by Wccftech, QuasarZone‘s meticulous testing revealed that, despite the full 48 Gbps bandwidth, neither Nvidia nor Intel’s graphics cards can fully support dual 4K@240Hz via the HDMI 2.1 interface. This includes the market’s formidable GeForce RTX 4090, which is capped at dual 4K@120Hz, the precise cause of which remains shrouded in mystery.
Image Credits: Quasarzone
Contrasting Nvidia and Intel, AMD’s Radeon RX 7000 series, built upon the RDNA 3 architecture, supports the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 gaming monitor’s dual 4K@240Hz, regardless of whether it’s interfaced through DisplayPort 2.1 or HDMI 2.1.
Speculation abounds that the constraints on the GeForce RTX 4090 may be intricately linked to the mechanism behind DSC (Display Stream Compression). An algorithm developed by VESA, DSC aims for efficient high-resolution output by harnessing the GPU’s “display pipeline”. The GeForce RTX 4090 might be restrained from dedicating ample display pipelines to a singular output interface, thus encountering a bottleneck. Another theory suggests that while the GeForce RTX 4090 supports the HDMI 2.1 interface, it might not be as refined, failing to match the 48 Gbps bandwidth of the Radeon RX 7000 series.
Although elite products like the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 gaming monitor, which demand such lofty display interface standards, are rare in the market, this scenario subtly underscores that Nvidia’s decision to forgo support for the DisplayPort 2.1 interface may not be the most sagacious.
