jabbadap Yeah like an old days, I'm just quite sure there's not enough bandwidth for 2160p@60Hz on DL-DVI. Anything over 1600p@60Hz were out of DVI spec. Sure if they would use some proprietary dongle to detect it as hdmi2.0b output, yeah sure it might work just fine. Well if I remember right those dvi-hdmi adapters were not made equal in the past either. Well made DP-HDMI adapter would have been the most easiest choice though.



1080p VRR monitors are usually just TN panels and I don't think 1650 is particularly good choice any higher resolution than that. So while yeah it should have DP, it's not necessary the most important video output that can't be dropped. HDMI is a must for UHD tellies for htpc usage, DL-DVI is must for old monitor users with higher than 1200p@60Hz.

You are definitely right, within the now orphaned spec, there is no provision for higher than 1600p@60Hz (nor Audio, USB, etc).I wonder what drives the port adoption, since someone lounging on an old 1600p display doesn't seem like a likely candidate for a low profile version of the smallest Turing chip. Specifically, someone with a 2560x1600 display that only had DL DVI input, not DP - DP was present even on my old Dell U2711. For older monitors, we are talking about the Apple Cinema Display and the Dell 3007WFP, and that's almost the entire range of monitors where DL-DVI would be a benefit because DP ports were absent on that monitor. In Apple's case, they were "being Apple" and only wanted a single video input attached to their proprietary power/video mux box, so DP didn't make the cut. For the Dell, it came out 4 years prior, when Displayport didn't even exist.It's such a limited use case, whereas DP would have covered a larger range of operation. Gsync (and Freesync) really bring the most benefit to lower end GPUs, IMO.