it would be nice if the Intel Graphics driver would support overriding EDID information like described in this document from Microsoft:
Why is this needed?
In a common HTPC (multimedia PC) setup with a PC, AVR (audio video receiver) and a television, the EDID information stored in the receiver & television that is passed to the PC determines the video and audio capabilities like: supported resolutions, supported audio formats etc ..
The problem is that very often the system only "sees" the EDID information of the television, and not that of the receiver, and so you don't get support for audio formats like DTS, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD that are supported by the receiver ...
The latest Sandy bridge CPU and corresponding chipset support all these sound standards, but they often not useable cause of these EDID problems.
Actually it really does not matter what video card / integrated graphics you use, NVidia and AMD graphics have the same problem, but their drivers
allows people to override the EDID information like is described in the above linked document from Microsoft.
Please implement this stuff, shouldn't be that hard to do, for one of you senior driver programmers it's probably just a few hours of work ...
Bryce, it is not only about video/panel settings that people want to override with the edid override feature.
Many have a computer with no optical (SPDIF) out, and a receiver with no HDMI in, so have a setup like this:
Computer > HDMI > TV > SPDIF > Receiver
With that setup, most of the time, the TV has no Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) support, so windows thinks that the audio capabilities are what the tv shows, and we lose our DD 5.1.
Now, with an xbox or ps3, it works, and even with some apps that have some inner hacks (plex media player), but mostly, it does not work.
With EDID override working, we get it working with NVIDIA or AMD, but are doomed with INTEL.
I can switch my HTPC to linux, and i read it works, but its hard leaving windows.
Rethinking things because there's two different sides to the workaround, external panels and internal panels.
I'll keep this thread updated for external panels and track the internal panel request through
So for the external panels update:
We're checking in the code changes and this takes a little time once it starts, but it's behind a queue of other changes being checked in, also there's a lot of testing to follow. Testing typically takes a few weeks or under if there's no roadblocks that arise. This is why I don't have an ETA yet, I'm waiting for the queue to go down and the check-in to begin so I can assess the schedule after that. Stay tuned...
Thanks for the feedback, good info! I really need this on a Windows platform and a stable/official release would do wonders. One can only hope!
http://qwikfix.co.uk/sky-customer-services/ Sky customer services
I have informed Toastyx of the upcoming changes to the driver and he had a question about pixel clock limits, you can find it over on the release thread for CRU if you would like.
http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU?page=221 Custom Resolution Utility (CRU)
"I mean the 165 MHz pixel clock limit for single-link DVI and HDMI. Many people are using CRU and the pixel clock patches to exceed that limit with external displays."
Perhaps you should check into this with the developers and see what can be done? There are two patchers for AMD and NVIDIA drivers which bypass this limit, so maybe intel can do something similar.
Thanks for the update, Bryce.
I understand a pre-release driver was available for INTERNAL EDID override.
ZacharyS, this tool just creates the custom EDID hex for you and inserts it into the registry, this doesn't patch any 'pixel clock limitations'.
It is effectively what the Intel CRU feature is supposed to do, but most people get the 'Exceeds maximum bandwidth message'.
I have proved that the Intel driver, even if the Intel CRU let you write the correct EDID override to registry, does not honour the custom EDID in any shape or form.
I have crafted my own EDIDs using various formulas (and proved them valid on linux, where the Intel driver has custom resolution support), and inserted them via the various routes, registry, INF, etc.
None of them work. Because the feature simply does not exist. The ONLY way this feature will ever work, is if they fix their driver. It's not a bug, it's a completely missing feature.
ALSO, the 165mhz pixel clock is a red herring. You can prove this by adding a resolution/refresh rate that is within 165mhz, and it still doesn't work. Go ahead, add 1920x1080@10hz. CRU doesn't exist!
Where are the beta drivers?
This is f------- ridiculous.
ALL of my home computing devices are crippled by your pathetic drivers. Every single one.
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ZEUS, GIVE ME A DRIVER WITH CRU WORKING
Apologies for the tardiness of the update. I'm checking in with the developer and I'll respond again shortly with where this is at. Thanks for your patience.
Okay, so great news, we have progress.
In plain english, I got this approved It'll be ready very soon for latest products, but will take some time to roll out to older generation platforms. Stay tuned...
A bit more detail for those interested...
We're checking this into [15.45] drivers (supporting 6th & 7th generation). It won't be in the next release, but I'm targeting it for the following one. Just calling it out so you don't get your hopes up quite yet when you see the upcoming release.
I just received approval for my request for check-in for [15.33] and [15.40] 3rd, 4th, and 5th Generation respectively. We will need to wait for driver builds. I'm planning to have this in our next 15.33 driver, and I'm working on which 15.40 I can align this with. As we get closer I'll do my best to keep you informed. Yes I get busy and slip on updates, (big apologies!) if it's been a while and you're curious, a gentle reminder via PM is certainly welcome
I'll note that currently there's no plan for 4th Gen Win7 & 8.1 [15.36]. I was only able to get approval for Win10 [15.40] on 4th Gen. Hopefully you can work with this support plan.
I'll note I deeply appreciate your continued patience on these cases.. this one in particular has been a long journey through a few different customer advocates and appeals, but I'm happy to see the traction on this now. Personally I've been wanting & waiting for this addition as well. I'm still working diligently on the LFP (Local flat panel) side of this. Getting this approved for EFP's (External flat panel) certainly helps me leverage the decision/progress and build on it for LFP.
Bryce@Intel Mah Boi,
About 90% Of the people on all these EDID complaint threads use the 4th generation Intel HD Graphics. Why would you push a release for the 6th and 7th when the people complaining are using the 4th? If I have to force the 6th and 7th to work on my 4th Gen Intel HD Graphics I will because this is unacceptable. I have a HD 4600 in my gaming laptop and having people with 6th and 7th that aren't even complaining as much as the 4th will get the patch but the 4th wont untill further notice? Naw man we have to get the update too Bryce@Intel This isn't gonna fly well with the people on all these threads with 4th Gens.
Bryce@Intel , following up from damani35000vr , I have some additional feedback about the LATEST DRIVERS released on 08/12/2016.
How I installed:
Intel® Graphics Driver for Windows® 10 and Windows 7*/8.1* [15.40]
Intel® Graphics Driver for Windows® 10 [15.40][4th Gen]
Basically, the latest drivers DO NOT WORK.
Worse still, the differentiated release, 'Intel® Graphics Driver for Windows® 10 [15.40][4th Gen]', is functionally identical.
The filesize is EXACTLY the same, and the Readme/release notes on the first page of the setup.exe wizard are the same.
> It is possible that the latest driver release (126.96.36.19901) hasn't been uploaded correctly for 4th Gen users.
> This is worth following up if this release has any new functionality as discussed.
Bryce, thanks for being a contact here more reliable than most others. But please, realise that these issues are not Feature requests - the Intel Drivers on Windows are not delivering what is promised.
Also, Intel's marketing materials advertise support of 'deep color' everywhere - but there is a December 2015 whitepaper showing that there is no way for anyone to use the feature! I'm just saying that we're not being fussy here - your company is literally failing its users.
What utterly confounds me, is how much better the Linux drivers are. The situation is usually the opposite.
I would also say there is a definite legal risk. Intel has blatantly not delivered on marketed claims.
There are plenty of products on Intel ARK that show features (resolutions, deep-color and others) that are NOT delivered to the customer.