The moment you realize that your monitor and or cable, is 16K capable and all you got is 2560x1440…
In Terminal run the command, to see your results: DISPLAY=:0 xrandr --prop
Probably just a theoretical GPU(or displayport) limit or something. You sort of can force a super high resolution on the monitor that has nowhere near that many pixels.
That is the maximum resolution supported by the X screen and not the display its self. can be multiple displays that make up a single x screen. DP 1.2 simply does not have enough bandwidth to do 16K and a 1440p panel certainly can’t either.
2 Likes
Yea, it seems like the latest display port rev can only 8k 30hz and 8k 60hz with some sort of compression tech.
1 Like
Are you sure? The command displays EDID information aswell.
According to these, it IS information on the display:
(It’s also from where, Freesync / Tearfree can be enabled on Linux, according to:
https://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/HOW-TO-ENABLE-AMD-FREESYNC-IN-LINUX.aspx)
I would have guessed that the cable would be limiting, that’s not the only factor. The monitor is most likely hardcoded to a maximum of 2560x1440p from which it is marketed by, aswell
That’s not 16k, that’s just 16 thousand.
Current 8k is four times 4k, which would be your 16k of pixels.
Their is a difference between resolution and pixel count.
2 Likes
The term 16K resolution refers to a display resolution that has 15360 horizontal pixels by 8640 vertical pixels
16K = 15360 x 8640
Obviously, something according to Linux, supports a maximum of 16384 x 16384 pixels. (Including 16K resolution) Since it requires two displayport cables for 8K, double that is 4 displayports = 16K or 4 displayports = 8K 120+hz (In this case it’s not the cable, so it must be the monitor, no matter how/if it is marketed/hardcoded/unsupported)
2 Likes
Its all fucked up. Based on what you said, 8k is better quality than 16k.
And they have 8k monitors, they require two display ports to work.
2 Likes
No, true 16K (not 16k res), if following the 1080p/4k/8k schema would need 8 DP cables with the current standard.
This is because 4k is 4 x 1080p, and 8k is 4 x 4k, so true 16k would be 4 x 8k.
1 Like
yes and his math checks out; 8k res is 4320p
obviously the connected display is not 16k+ res, must be some weird software stuff.
sounds likely, dunno
1 Like
Well 4K marketing is not even true 4K anway it’s only 3840 × 2160 (or so i’ve heard, not the most interesting thing for me)
It’s not some weird software stuff. The terminal doesn’t lie (unlike some other operating systems, 
. It clearly says Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 2560 x 1440, (This is the resolution it’s running atm) and maximum 16384 x 16384 of which manipulation could be possible with the right EDID information for the display? Anyways the Terminal command above shows the EDID and it’s also possible to extract it via nvidia-settings: https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3571/~/managing-a-display-edid-on-linux
Also read somewhere that by editing/extracting EDID information (seen on nvidia forum) someone was able to put a Dell monitors EDID on a Asus monitor and thereby making it recognize proper? resolution. Maybe there are more possibilities for/with EDID who knows?
But the X Screen has nothing to do with specific monitors, it is the canvas in which displays are drawn to. My current is 6400 x 2160 because I have two monitors connected to my computer.
