Intel Graphics drivers for 4k displays over DP1.2

[LEB]

Good day

It is mentioned on Dell's website (see: http://www.dell.com/support/troubleshooting/us/en/19/KCS/KcsArticles/ArticleView?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&docid=646992 http://www.dell.com/support/troubleshooting/us/en/19/KCS/KcsArticles/ArticleView?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&docid=646992 ),

that due to Intel driver limitations,

1. when in DP 1.1 mode, the 4k monitor requires 3840 x 2160 @ 60hz and the current Intel drivers cannot drive this resolution; instead it drops to 3840 x 2160 @ 29 MHz and lagging.
2. when in DP 1.2 mode, the 4k monitor image is split in 2 and the graphics adapter then drives the two (what it thinks are separate) displays at half resolution at 60hz. The system is treating the display as two separate 1920 x 2160 displays at 60 MHz rather than a single display of 3840x2160 @ 60 HZ.

According to Dell, "Intel is in development of drivers to support 4k/2k displays." as of 2014-04-06.

Have these new drivers supporting 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz over DP 1.2 for 4th gen core i7 CPU's (such as i7-4702HQ) been released yet? If so, what version number of the driver introduces this support?

Regards

EBL

[Jose_H_Intel1]

Hi EBL, UHD resolution at 60 Hz is already supported with Intel® "H" processors and DP 1.2 only as indicated here:

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics Quick Reference Guide to 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Graphics (formerly codenamed Haswell)

Basically this should work with the latest driver. Considering there are two scenarios explained above, are you experiencing any specific issue with your system?

[LEB]

Hi, thanks for the response.

Although the H CPU's do technically support it in hardware, apparently there is an issue with the driver.

The issue is the same as that described in the thread:

/thread/46375 https://communities.intel.com/thread/46375

In that thread, according to "allan_intel", on May 26, 2014, they were "still waiting for some news about this topic from engineering department. No ETA yet."

This information is needed for a purchasing decision. I need to know whether this issue has now been resolved.

Thank you

EBL

[MWool3]

QUOTE ""Intel is in development of drivers to support 4k/2k displays." as of 2014-04-06"

You answered your own question.

Drivers are almost never done in 2 or 3 months. I am certain that when the drivers are released, Intel will be tooting from the top of mountains that it is. And even when They say they are released, expect lots and lots of bugs.

In the mean time, why would you spend thousands of dollars on a 4K display to run things at about 3 FPS? You do know that 4K data is MASSIVE compared to 1080 and if you get 20 FPS with 1920x1080, at 4lk you might get 3-5 FPS. Intel graphics are really really weak. They get better with each CPU refresh, but they are still a very long ways behind what AMD and Nvidia can do today.

In order to use 4k effectively, you are going to need to put together a seriously heavy duty computer with 2-3 high end Nvidia video cards, setup SLI across them, and cross your fingers that everything works together because there are no real standards yet, and while some manufacturers are working together trying to make things work, some monitors only work if the 2 Displayport (DP) channels carry the whole image (half on each DP connection), other monitors now accept frankenstein HDMI connections, and some actually have new 4k chips in them that only work over DP 1.2. Right now, you would probably spend a good $1500 or so for a decent 4k panel, and then another $1500 to $3000 on video cards trying to get some decent frame rates on that panel. and again even after you spend all that money, you really dont know if the panel uses the same standards that the video cards do.

In a year or three, 4k displays will all follow a single standard, and all video card manufacturers should also be supporting the same standard. But that is NOT the case today.

[Jose_H_Intel1]

EBL, the issue discussed in the thread you linked above is completely different from the one discussed here. I suggest you following up there if needed.