Hello.
Yes, I just tested the cable bundled with the monitor. It works flawlessly.
My motherboard is ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E HERO on BIOS 1415 (latest version).
I am not sure if this is relevant but when checking the refresh rate settings in Windows 11, it says the HDR certification is VESA DisplayHDR 600 (1.1).
The cable I am using is the Club3D CAC-1069B purchased from the following link:
I saw that you already resolved the problem. Still, I'm curious about one thing: when you say the cable is VESA certified—are you basing that on the fact that one of the Amazon images shows "VESA certified", or on actually having looked up that particular brand/manufacturer in VESA's database of certified products?
Quite simply (and again, I realize that this is no longer germane to this discussion, since the problem is already resolved; nevertheless, I think this is worth mentioning), the time I tried to make use of DP 1.4's Multi Stream Transport (MST) protocol to drive a 4K display at 60 Hz (since back when the first 4K displays started to come out, about ten years ago, there was no protocol that could support 4K resolution at 60 Hz; so the solution at the time was to split the physical display (3840x2160) into logical screens that divided the display area into left and right halves, each with a resolution of 1920x2160 and at 60 Hz.
Until I ran into this problem, I was convinced that DP was superior, if for no other reason than because it's an open standard that does not require exorbitant licensing fees the way HDMI does.
When I subsequently spent countless frustrating hours trying to find a cable that actually was fully DP 1.4 compliant, my original view regarding which standard was superior was flipped on its head. I ended up buying several DP cables—none of them cheap, mind you, and yet at least one of which was designed in such an appallingly deceitful fashion that it claimed (in its description) to have gold contacts (to prevent oxidation)—and yet these contacts had merely been anodized with some material to appear sort of gold-like in color. Meanwhile, there were several black spots covering the connector, where the material had clearly become oxidized.
This happened several years ago, btw, when there were barely a handful of entries in VESA's database of products that had actually been tested by VESA and found to be compliant (although I'm not sure what sort of protocol VESA used to test for 100% compliance; because what matters isn't typical operability, but consistent functionality at the limit). In fact, the description stated that each compatible device had to be individually listed, otherwise validation wasn't guaranteed—and this specifically meant that you could have different length cables from the same company, and if only one length was listed, only that specific cable was guaranteed to fully meet the DP 1.4 protocol specifications (keep in mind, this was sending a signal with double the bandwidth through a single cable—so transmission length certainly was a factor).
In other words, the vast majority of cables that were being sold as DP 1.4 compliant were likely of insufficient quality to function as advertised, if the protocol was pushed to its limits. Yet they were good enough in the vast majority of all other, normal use cases, thus allowing all those manufacturers to, in effect, defraud consumers in large numbers.
The same could never have happened with HDMI even if its existing protocol revision had incorporated a MST equivalent at the time, precisely because the hundred thousand dollar (IIRC) licensing fee that every manufacturer had to pay to be able to manufacture and legally sell HDMI-compatible cables, etc. would have a) kept a bunch of fly-by-night manufacturers with dubious manufacturing practices and quality control from flooding the market with junk products and making things very difficult for the few individuals who were dependent on 100% compliant cables.
Furthermore, I assume that the same exorbitant licensing fee also comes with a formal certification process, which additionally keeps inferior junk that fails to meet the claimed spec from being sold.
In short, although I noticed some time ago that things had improved somewhat over the years (in particular, regarding the number of devices tested by VESA and said to be compliant), the fact remains that VESA, as a publisher of an open standard, is neither interested in, nor has the resources to go after shady enterprises that turn the lack of oversight and enforcement into a grift, harming consumers. And it's worth mentioning that, per my own experiences (some of which I explained above), I would be utterly unsurprised if it turned out that some of these manufacturers on Amazon absolutely do use that VESA compliant icon/statement in a totally shameless and fraudulent manner—because they can jack up the price for the same non-compliant garbage product, and who's going to stop them.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram