In Ubuntu the AMD runs the two daisy chained Dell U2413s no problem, yet will not activate the 3rd single monitor on the other DisplayPort header.
We even tried the AMD R5 430 in on an Optiplex 7010 and the ill behavior remains.
However, I think that would be enough proof for me (don't get mad ... it's just my opinion).
@speedstep You're stating the bandwidth of this card is inadequate? What bandwidth? Please be specific to backup what you're saying? I think most folks would agree that the AMD GPU has far more bandwidth than the Intel that has no difficulty running three displays off (2) DP 1.2 headers.
The Intel is 64 bit so maybe that's it? Nope, a 64 bit bus drives 3 monitors for other GPUs like GeForce GT 710 and others https://www.evga.com/products/specs/gpu.aspx?pn=f3bde376-5dc6-4143-b5f6-2c7e7625c9d9
The Displayport lanes bandwidth? Nope, already referenced how that cannot be the issue.
Yes, the board is GCN 1.0. I've yet to see anywhere that GCN 1.0 cards are limited to 2 displays. GCN 1.0 was out January 2012, 4 years after AMD moved beyond a 2 displays limitation. This AMD R5 430 GPU is 4 years newer than that. E.G. Radeon 7990 is GCN 1.0 and drives 5-6 displays no problem. A noted selling point for that GCN 1.0 board "Use of 3 or more displays with AMD Eyefinity technology requires a DisplayPort-capable panel".
Maybe it's the video memory then? Nope, running a 1080 YouTube video on each display only uses roughly 1050MB of VRAM on the AMD R5 430 GPU.
So I ask again, @speedstep please be specific as to what bandwidth you're referring to?
Why bring up a 150W 4-8GB GPU as if that's the only thing that can drive 3 displays when I've already emphasized a half dozen times that Intel Graphics from 2013 does it no problem?
Why mention specialized Displayport 1.2 display hubs when I've already emphasized so many times that (2) Dell U2413 that have the MST hub built right into the monitor work fine in running (2) U2413 daisy-chained off of a single DP header on either the AMD GPU or Intel integrated? The Dell AMD GPU just has a problem with activating a 3rd display in any configuration.
Apart from @DELL-Chris M , the commentary on this thread has been largely a devolution of discourse justifying how DP 1.2 MST (technology that's been around for 8 years) works to "hobbyists??" with 20000-40000 posts. You guys aren't bothering to read the thorough details that have been provided from the outset and reiterated half a dozen ways. It's as if these guys work for Dell sales and have one track minds that "features couldn't possibly be encumbered by drivers/firmware/PCB revision." They're bent on steering Dell customers to spend more money on graphics boards that draw 7x as many watts for CAD or video games, take up more space, and make more noise. Here's what Intel graphics looks like driving 3 idle displays off 2 DP headers.
And here's what Intel graphics looks like playing back (3) 1080 action scenes on YouTube on each screen simultaneously.
The only way I was able to max out the power on the Intel graphics was to run a 4k encode. It hit 20W max and that’s not even our need anyways - an awful lot less than the 150W RX480 GPU @speedstep mentions.
Granted the AMD board was using a little over 1000MB while playing back (2) 1080P action videos simultaneously, so perhaps it would use 1500MB of VRAM for three? …if three actually would activate. The important part is folks…humility when trying to sift through technical problems like this instead of only "seeing what you want to see" and being dogmatic and dismissing inconvenient things.
@Tesla1856 I appreciate the kind words. Yet, you can imagine why I'm feeling like at every turn, two major voices steering discourse on this forum are too eager to post without paying sufficient attention, and too willing to post "the solution is to spend more money" instead of more thoughtfully evaluating the technical considerations. I put this scenario on the forum on the prospect of possibly hearing from other owners of this GPU or Dell mods. Instead the discourse has been dominated by persons who don't own the GPU and have no access to Dell engineering literature about Dell product in question.
Dell sells the OEM AMD R5 430 GPU for $130 (first post of this thread). Maybe the end result is the 1GB DDR3 Intel integrated graphics from 2013 does beat out the 2GB GDDR5 AMD board from 2016 in driving three displays off (2) DP 1.2 headers. Maybe the AMD can only do (2) off a single header as I've affirmed and the other header must be unused. Yet, given all I've emphasized about Intel integrated graphics driving daisy-chained DP 1.2 displays no problem (up to 3 total), it's not crazy for users seeking a performance bump to have anticipated that this Dell AMD offering would have satisfied 3 displays given its dual DP 1.2 ports like Intel Integrated.
If the end solution is to get a different, like or better, Dell OEM low-profile, discrete GPU that's 50W or less and drives three monitors, I think we could justify the cost benefit as long as it didn't exceed $175 or something like that. However, anything at 75W+ that takes up two slots or anything like that is overkill for our needs and not a cost we can justify. Is there a Dell OEM Nvidia GPU with dual DP 1.2 headers that works like Intel graphics works?? Or maybe they're also limited like this Dell AMD GPU??
I never imagined I'd say this, but since Intel has shown their DP 1.2 graphics works as expected, maybe Intel's forthcoming DG1 Xe LP GPUs will fill this exact niche where this AMD fails. The discrete Intel GPUs are rumored to be 20-50 Watts. Maybe they'll perform like or better to this AMD, and most importantly the dual Displayport headers will work to drive 3+ displays off of two DP headers (as works on this DP 1.2 Intel Integrated graphics from as far back as seven years ago.) 😉
You guys aren't bothering to read the thorough details that have been provided from the outset
@Tesla1856 I appreciate the kind words.
and have no access to Dell engineering literature about Dell product in question.
I've read everything you posted.
We signed NDA's in the beginning. Maybe not specs on old video-cards, but I have access to some pretty cool stuff (but I'm not suppose to say, so I don't).
Hey, I'll answer "my questions" in more detail later (as it is late) but let me ask you ...
I get the impression you have a bunch of these UltraSharp u2413 monitors that you want to use (in sets of 3). Do you mind telling me how many?
Also, how many of these new Optiplex machines did you buy already, and which model is it exactly? Finally, did you buy them directly from Dell, and what are their specs?
@Tesla1856 I appreciate the kind words.
works to "hobbyists??" with 20000-40000 posts.
"the solution is to spend more money" instead of more thoughtfully evaluating the technical considerations.
I put this scenario on the forum on the prospect of possibly hearing from other owners of this GPU or Dell mods.
You come here with this problem, looking for a solution.
I tend to work in "proper and established ways" to do things, to ensure a high-degree of success. I don't really have a "lets get this barely working, and save some money" mode. Anyway, you already tried that.
The solution I posted was to use a dedicated (normal or full-sized) video-card with 3 Display-Ports. Stick it in a machine that it will fit in. Don't buy anything if you don't have to.
Apparently, no one (that has logged into this forum, and saw your message) has that older OEM AMD video card. Not so surprising, as it apparently has limited uses (as you have shown) . Anyway, the only one that could make it work differently is AMD, and they moved on to the next series of GPUs and cards years ago.
Not once have you said why you need 3 monitors attached. What is the program, App, or general work-flow use-case? Are you just trying to Extend the Windows Desktop ?
If you would have listened to me a few days ago, you would likely be well on your way to getting 3 monitors working, for about $1-$150 (per station) more than you were going to spend before. My guess it that the boss would have been pleased (because the project got completed).
If you want to run 3 4k screens you need a GPU that says it supports this.
PNY Quadro P400 Graphic Card - 2 GB GDDR5
A DisplayPort MST Hub will split the total bandwidth coming from a DisplayPort 1.2 output and allow you to connect up to 4 independent 1920 x 1080 monitors or two high resolution 2560 x 1600 monitors.
DisplayPort 1.2 supports resolutions up to 4K (3840 x 2160) at 60Hz when connected to a single display or 4K (3840 x 2160) at 30Hz when connected to dual displays. There are no 4k MST 3 display hubs.
GCN 1st gen DOES NOT SAY it can support 3 displays 4096×2160 @ 60 Hz
GCN 1st gen DOES NOT SAY it can support 3 displays 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
GCN 1st gen DOES NOT SAY it can support 3 displays 1920×1080 @ 60 Hz
RX series is GCN 2nd Gen and up.
The fill rate bandwith of your 64 bit card barely meets minimum bandwidth to support 1 screen 4k 60hz 8 bit.
You have to go down from the column to the bottom where you see that RX200 is minimum supporting what you are asking for. R5 430 is nowhere to be found.
I mentioned the RX400 Series because thats where you put a RED Circle and said SEE it works fine with 3 displays.
64 bit vs 128 bit vs 256 bit.
What does that mean. It means that a 64 bit card is 8 times slower at refreshing ONE screen because it has to clock 4 times for each frame whereas a 256 bit card like the RX400 series does 1 clock for 1 frame. 256 Bit cards like HD5870 (Cypress), 5770 (Juniper) and 5670 (Redwood) support max resolution of the 6 times 2560×1600 pixels, while the 128 bit 5470 (Cedar) supports 4 times 2560×1600 pixels.
More than 2 displays was never presented as a feature or Option for dell oem R5 430 series. AMD has removed this from their site.
. To enable more than two displays, or multiple displays from a single output, additional hardware DisplayPort 1.2 MST-enabled hubs is required. A maximum of two active adapters is supported.
Architecture Codename: Sea Islands (Oland)
CLRX Version: GCN 1.0
Graphics/Compute: GFX6 (gfx601)
Display Core Engine: 6.4
Unified Video Decoder: 4.0
Video Compression Engine: 1.0
GPU Clock 730 MHz
Boost Clock 780 MHz
Memory Clock 900 MHz
GDDR5, 64 bit
The way it works is quite simply the bus width pretty much controls the number of memory chips that can be used on the card.
A GPU with 256-bit bus has 8 memory chips minimum, since each memory chip have a 32-bit wide bus.
The way it works is quite simply the bus width pretty much controls the number of memory chips that can be used on the card.
A GPU with 64-bit bus has 2 memory chips minimum and must clock 4 times for each frame. it's bandwidth, 256bit being like 4 lanes of traffic (data), 192 like 3 lanes, 128, like 2, 64 being 1.
The other issue is 8 bit or 10 bit or 12 bit color.
4k 60hz 8bit 4:4:4 video requires 17.82GBPS PER SCREEN.
4k 60hz 12bit 4:4:4 video requires 27.73 GBPS PER SCREEN.
Your card does not have the ability to drive 3 4k screens let alone 3 1080p screens.
|Apr 2000||Aug 2001||Sep 2002||May 2004||Oct 2005||May 2007||Nov 2007||Jun 2008||Sep 2009||Oct 2010||Jan 2012||Sep 2013||Jun 2015||Jun 2016||Jun 2017||Jul 2019|
|Radeon 7000||Radeon 8000||Radeon 9000||Radeon X700/X800||Radeon X1000||Radeon HD 1000/2000||Radeon HD 3000||Radeon HD 4000||Radeon HD 5000||Radeon HD 6000||Radeon HD 7000||Radeon Rx 200||Radeon Rx 300||Radeon RX 400/500||Radeon RX Vega/Radeon VII(7nm)||Radeon RX 5000|
Our director was really enthusiastic about Dell for our refresh. I was onboard with that enthusiasm until you guys wore me down with this engagement. I worked super diligently to have a sound reason why Intel graphics worked when the AMD did not. What follows is for posterity's sake for other organizations.
99% of the time a discrete GPU is an upgrade to Intel Integrated graphics. This instance is no exception. So from a technicals standpoint it's not insane that the Dell AMD GPU could have been capable of driving three displays given the otherwise inferior Intel does it with ease. I've shared screenshots and lots of practical details to that end.
Yet, these two Dell Rockstar personalities have misdirected from basic facts at every opportunity. For lack of humility, their logic has gone out the window and they're trying to convince the world that up is down, and down is up, as if the specs of the AMD board were inferior to Intel Integrated graphics.
@ Tesla1856 would go so far as to make an underhanded comment like "let's get this barely working, and save some money." Your average IT Pro would never condescend to customers that more powerful discrete GPU is "let's get this barely working" or "trying to save some money."
I already communicated we presently have and are only interested in SFF. @Tesla1856 continues to dismiss that requirement and continues to advocate full towers. He says "apparently no one has that older GPU." Again misdirection. Dell is offering the GPU as an UPGRADE with currently shipping SFF 7070, 3070, and XE3. Kind of a bummer for the select customers with 3 displays customers who buy it as an upgrade and then realize they need to pull out the Dell AMD R5 430 GPU because 3 displays will only work off of the (2) DP headers of the Intel® UHD Graphics 630. @Tesla1856's doesn’t find this a curious state of affairs and instead jeers Dell customers that bother to buy the UPGRADE as they're somehow being in "let's get this barely working and save some money mode."
It's a small demographic that uses three displays, yet no doubt another customer will have the same concern eventually. It's a legitimate concern. Though a smaller demographic of customer, it's also a savvier and customer of reasonable value to Dell. To so aggressively delegitimize them as you've done to me is shocking. When customers communicate they're using SFF and wish to remain with SFF, Tesla1856 sure likes to ignore them and press Mini Towers.
Imagine you're considering renewing your fleet of vehicles for all your employees if it met your needs and the economics made sense. Your needs are renewing a fleet of midsize electric vehicles but only if the current battery tech meets a certain fuel economy does it make sense. You say what your needs are, but the sales guy shouts you down, insisting you must buy large diesel SUVs for your fleet. You politely reiterate your needs but he just keeps shouting you down. I just needed you guys to provide a sound reason why Intel delivers where the AMD upgrade doesn't and have the humility to defer to someone else if it's not really your domain. The opposite of what happened in this engagement.
Speedstep finally shared something totally constructive with the Nvidia P400 offering. Seriously thank you! For all the orgs like us that prefer to keep everything OEM when possible hopefully Dell offers it to their customers. I see HP has their OEM version for their workstations. Perhaps it's only available for Dell workstations also. That doesn't mean Dell shouldn't provide a sound explanation for the Intel vs AMD UPGRADE oddity. I also like that it's even DP 1.4 to be future proof for HDR.
Wild how these two would talk past a customer so much and finally share another low profile (CHECK), that is low power 30W (CHECK), and 2GB GDDR5 (CHECK). And can drive 4 displays off 3 headers (CHECK), purchase price (CHECK). Seriously it checks all the boxes. Does anyone see the irony that it's a "64 bit" GPU, with a VRAM bandwidth 5 gbps less than Dell's AMD board? It's other specs like GPU clock and pixel fillrate are much better. I celebrate that. But don't let these guys convince you that's WHY the Dell AMD R5 430 couldn't have possibly worked to drive 3 displays. You can see the specs of the Intel graphics or Nvidia GT 710 that drive (3) 1080P / 1200 displays are far less than the Dell AMD GPU.
In repsonse to @speedstep's latest post…
As I mentioned before, I didn't know what a "Dell Rockstar" is. I imagine the vast majority of them are pleasant to collaborate with. I discovered there's actually an article that explains it here. https://www.dell.com/community/New-to-Dell-Community/Dell-Community-Rockstars/m-p/6229516
I'm surprised Dell hasn't mandated that a link explaining who these folks are be in their signature line. I wish they would have just shared the link when I questioned what their relationship was to Dell. It just adds confusion when people see "I don't work for Dell," yet, their signature line has Dell support links and such. It's also a little disingenuous to say that when these folks are in fact receiving various perks from Dell as compensation. When it comes to other persons advocating on the internet on behalf of a brand, they have to comply with the FTC mandate to disclose (on the same page) that they're receiving compensation in some form.
There's an L2 or graphics engineer somewhere at Dell that likely could discern exactly what's impeding activation of a third display on this Dell AMD GPU and if it's at the driver/firmware/or PCB level. Maybe it's the PCB itself and no other revisions are forthcoming. Yet, it's fair for customers to inquire and be provided a sound reason as to why Intel graphics works where the AMD fails. For lack of humility, these two Dell Rockstar personalities immensely hindered constructive dialogue to sort it out. I understand Dell has good apples and bad apples. Even good folks have bad moments. But given the depths of how obstinate these two have been, I couldn't be happier that my IT director resolved that Dell will no longer be considered for this refresh. We'll give Dell another shot come next refresh as long as we're listened to, and not talked past. Hopefully, Dell hits a homerun when that time comes to make up for this shameful strikeout.
@dell-robert p It would go a long way for future Dell customers if someone made a concise post about the Intel vs AMD upgrade observation instead of this thread littered with distractions and misinformation.
Well, maybe all the time-and-effort you have put into this thread will help AMD to change the DisplayPort functionality of this little Dell-OEM half-height video card.
However, I'm pretty sure it must be installed in an actual recent-model Dell Optiplex to have any validity. You never stated the model.
Glad to hear the boss is happy and you are still the hero. Nice twisting of my words (but no worries, I'm accustom to it). And no, you are not the first to mistake this Community Based Forum as a way to get free official Dell Technical Support (business-class at that).
However, I think your personal attacks were uncalled-for (since we were just trying to help you) . I noticed you even had negative things to say about the Rockstar program in general.
You have a lot of buzz words and like pictures but some of what you say is complete nonsense.
"Stop telling people that this isn't a Radeon RX 400 series GPU. Folks can see that it is just by searching "Oland" or "430" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_RX_400_series "
R5 430 is not an RX 400 series card aka 460 470 480.
The RX prefix is used for cards that offer over 1.5 teraflops
of performance and 80 GB/s of bandwidth