12 Posts
0
10932
Dell AMD R5 430 GPU part #931Y4F. Not possible to activate 3 displays
Can anyone verify function of 3 displays on this specific Dell graphics card?
TLDR; Though DisplayPort 1.2 MST (daisy chain function) works on either port for 2 monitor function. Activating a 3rd DisplayPort monitor direct connected to the other DP header will not activate via Windows display settings.
Long version;
We're considering buying new SFF Optiplexes for our 3 monitor setups. I noticed most of the SFF Optiplex we've been looking at (3060, 5060, 5070, 7070, XE3) offer the Dell 931Y4F AMD Radeon R5 430 video board as a beefier graphics option. Our existing units (HP Workstation Win10 x64 with Intel P4600 graphics) could benefit from a beefier graphics board anyways so I went ahead and bought the Dell card here
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/amd-radeon-r5-430-2gb-half-height-dp-dpcustomer-install/apd/490-bemx/graphic-video-cards
The workstation booted up no problem and Windows update loaded the April 2019 AMD driver. Doing 3 monitors off a dual head GPU such as this requires that one of the monitors run off the Displayport 1.2 daisy chain. That is how this workstation was previously functioning no problem with 3 monitors on the Intel graphics. Two Dell U2413 were running off a single Intel Displayport 1.2 header via DP MST.
The (2) Dell U2413 monitors (we’ll call them A & B) operating via DP MST daisy chain work fine. The 3rd monitor (we’ll call it C) connected to the alternate DP header presents in device manager and under the Windows display control panel. I expected I would just have to activate C via “extend desktop onto this display”. Yet, making that selection fails to activate display C despite the 15 second countdown to keep the settings.
Now the weird part. If I disable either one of the daisy chained monitors A or B the 3rd monitor C on the alternate DP header activates instantly and functions fine. I can disable the first monitor A in the DP MST daisy chain and leave active the second daisy chained display B and activate the 3rd display C on the alternate DP header and that combination works fine.
I’m convinced Displayport MST daisy chain is not the issue but rather something most likely at the driver/firmware/chip level for this specific Dell AMD GPU. I’ve tried the more recent drivers direct from AMD 19.12.2 & 20.1.1. The ill behavior persists.
Though I don’t think logical given the behavior, I even swapped out the cables, monitors and swapped around the connections to the Displayport headers on the GPU. The cables are the full-size DP 1.2 cables that came with the monitors. Though the monitors support it, I don’t have any cables with DP mini connects. I’m not using any adapters…just straight through cables.
I even tried running the daisy chain off of monitor C (an LG that supports DP 1.2 MST as well) and all three work but only when two at a time. Swapping from the 2 AMD Displayport headers back to the two Intel Integrated DP headers activates all three simultaneously just as functioned before attempting the AMD GPU.
On the chance that allowing the integrated GPU to be activated was somehow impeding, I also tested with that disabled in BIOS. No luck. I don't think it's a bandwidth problem because it shows up exactly how it's supposed to as PCIe 3.0 x8 link. Also a 4k display works fine. I checked to see if Dell offers an OEM Nvidia 1030 card but I don't think that's the case.
sdfg2345
12 Posts
1
January 17th, 2020 11:00
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.
https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/design-visualization/productspage/quadro/quadro-desktop/quadro-pascal-p400-data-sheet-us-nv-704503-r1.pdf
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.
@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.
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
17K Posts
0
January 11th, 2020 11:00
1. No, all my AMD video-cards are older-gen.
2. I suggest a Mini-Tower (with the larger Power-Supply ) for this use-case. Install a (full or normal-sized) dedicated video-card with 3 Display-Ports. That should do it.
EDIT:
Yes, Dell Ultra-Sharp U2413 monitors are still viable (but just barely).
1200p , IPS-Panel, matte. I like a 16:10 aspect also.
sdfg2345
12 Posts
0
January 12th, 2020 15:00
Thanks for your thoughts. Yet, if we just dismissed how things like drivers, firmware, and PCB revisions fix things not functioning as per spec, I think we'd be in the poor house if we handed over ever greater sums of money and didn't let engineers fix their mistaken snaffus.
In this instance it really is a "not functioning per spec" thing given how Dell "setup and specs guide" for Optiplex 7060 SFF & 7070 SFF clearly states the OEM AMD R5 430 is Displayport 1.2 ports
https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/optiplex-7060-desktop_specifications_en-us.pdf
https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/optiplex-7070-desktop_owners-manual2_en-us.pdf
AMD outlines in their EyeFinity literature that all Radeon desktop GPUs since 2013 can drive up to 6 displays per GPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Eyefinity
Of course there are limitations per each DisplayPort 1.2 header as well which is outlined here and it’s (4) 1920x1200 daisy chained per DisplayPort 1.2 header.
https://www.displayport.org/cables/driving-multiple-displays-from-a-single-displayport-output/
https://multimonitorcomputer.com/solved/displayport-daisy-chaining-of-3-or-4-monitors-quick-guide.php
I also booted up Ubuntu 18.04 LTS on the unit. As was with Windows 10, the 3 displays work off 2 DP on the Intel graphics but not the AMD R5 430. 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. Again, only if one of the daisy chained displays is first disabled, will the 3rd direct attached monitor activate.
We even tried the AMD R5 430 in on an Optiplex 7010 and the ill behavior remains. Overall, I'm really disappointed since I remember running 3 displays off a single DisplayPort 1.2 with old Nvidia K620 like 6-7 years ago when the Dell U2413 monitors came out. AMD EyeFinity & DisplayPort MST technology isn't anything new. Given the behavior of this AMD R5 430 board, my best guess is Dell/AMD are blocking a third display somewhere in the PCB/firmware stack.
speedstep
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
47K Posts
0
January 13th, 2020 09:00
AMD Radeon R5-430 PCI Express Dual Display port is not designed to run more than 2 displays because it does not have display port 1.2 ports.
There may also be a problem with the driver as its legacy now.
https://dl.dell.com/FOLDER04324535M/2/_AMD-Radeon-R5-430-Graphics-Driver_DCJD9_WIN_17.10.2001_A00.EXE
This package provides AMD Radeon R7-450X,R5-440X and R5-430X Driver
In order to enable Daisy chaining, the first monitor in the series (the monitor directly connected to the graphics card) must have DP 1.2 enabled in the monitor settings. The last monitor in the chain must have DP 1.2 disabled.
A DisplayPort 1.1 display can only be used as the last display in a MST display chain.)
https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/sln295251/how-to-configure-u2415-monitor-daisy-chaining-on-intel-hd-graphics?lang=en
sdfg2345
12 Posts
0
January 13th, 2020 11:00
There is something wrong with this picture. This thread is being hijacked by forum users with 43000 and 20000 posts, yet they don't work for Dell? That's not reasonable. They must be receiving benefit(s) (likely from Dell directly or indirectly) to expend that kind of time on this forum?
And what are they saying? The first "user" says to buy more costly products though this Dell product clearly isn't functioning per spec. The second "user" clearly didn't even read the exhaustive troubleshooting. They first say Dell Part 931Y4F does not have DisplayPort 1.2 ports despite the previous emphasis and links to Dell's setup and specs guide for Optiplex 7060 SFF & 7070 SFF that indicates they are Displayport 1.2 ports.
Even if Dell's literature was mistaken, I've already emphasized how these Dell U2413 displays are working in Displayport MST Daisy chain without issue. It's just activation of a third direct attached straight through Displayport monitor thereafter becomes impossible. Disabling either the first or second in the daisy chain allows the third direct attached straight through Displayport monitor to function fine.
Despite user SpeedStep stating it's not Displayport 1.2, the user goes on to contradict themselves giving suggestions as if it was Displayport 1.2.
Where is actual Dell staff on this forum? Do Dell staff delete posts from users that hijack threads like this? Most importantly do actual Dell staff assist customers having problems with Dell products not functioning as per spec?
Edit: I just remembered glancing at a post by a Dell mod about Displayport MST and found it here
https://www.dell.com/community/Monitors/Monitor-Daisy-Chaining-explained/td-p/5177869
Apparently he's actual Dell staff and still an active mod on this forum (60000 posts so that just goes to show how curious it looks when "non-Dell employee" users have 43000 posts.)
@DELL-Chris M Can you please jump in so this thread can move in a constructive direction?
DELL-Chris M
Community Manager
Community Manager
•
54.2K Posts
0
January 13th, 2020 13:00
I will try to help, but, Optiplex are no longer in my jurisdiction. There is a non-Consumer PC team designated to assist with Optiplex. They are not on my team.
This is a "user to user" Forum with some Dell assistance. They are not hijacking the thread.
They are Dell Rockstars who are unpaid volunteers who try to assist users.
931Y4F? Dell part numbers are 5 digit. A search for 931Y4 or 31Y4F comes up empty? Can you provide a picture via Private Message of the serial number label on that video card?
You should not use AMD retail site to check video card specifications for our Dell OEM (original equipment manufacturer) customized hardware.
For the Optiplex 3060 I see =
K6T46 AMD Radeon R5-430, PCIe, Low Profile, 2GB GDDR5, Dual Display Port 1.2, OUGA14
9VHW0 AMD Radeon R5-430, PCIe, Half height, 2GB GDDR5, Dual Display Port 1.2, OUGA14L
Dell supports the following monitor configurations =
* Two independent displays with DP 1.2 MST at a max of 2560x1600 resolution
* Single monitor up to 4096x2160 resolution
* Dual display up to 1920x1200 resolution with an optional DP to SL-DVI adapter
sdfg2345
12 Posts
0
January 13th, 2020 16:00
@DELL-Chris M I appreciate your acknowledging this. Since Optiplex is no longer your domain, perhaps you could loop in one of the Optiplex mods? I checked to see if there's a product line mod list somewhere but couldn't find one. You're right that I goofed about the Dell part number. Please update the thread subject line to 9VHW0. Here's the photo and I mistakenly posted the part number from the edge of the GPU instead of the tiny 3D barcode with the CN number.
In this case it's not unfair to say the other users commentary was diverting the commentary sideways and even backwards. I trust that's just a rare bad showing. I still don't comprehend why a non-Dell staff would have 2/3 as many posts as actual paid Dell staff. Moving on…
Thanks for pulling up the Dell part numbers involved
K6T46 AMD Radeon R5-430, PCIe, Low Profile, 2GB GDDR5, Dual Display Port 1.2, OUGA14
9VHW0 AMD Radeon R5-430, PCIe, Half height, 2GB GDDR5, Dual Display Port 1.2, OUGA14L
I see right on the line entry for that that it affirms they're Dual Display Port 1.2.
I understand OEMs tweak PCBs, ROMs etc and I have been seeking the info from Dell first when possible.
Given the volume of this board in circulation with Optiplex units it would be great to have a concrete affirmation from Dell as to the unexpected limitation of this OEM GPU??? Customers can operate (2) displays up to 1920x1200 off a single DP header on this GPU no problem but a monitor on the other DP header will be useless?
I'm just stunned because this 2013 unit can operate 3 displays off a single Intel graphics DP header or 3 displays off two DP headers. Yet, this dedicated AMD board from 2016 will go so far as to disallow activation of a 3rd display direct attached to a DP header.
Does Dell have detailed info about this OEM GPU published somewhere online? For now I was just left looking at the AMD Eyefinity chart & AMD Radeon RX 400 series chart on WikiPedia that suggests that 2008 R700 series was the last AMD chipset to support only 2 displays. This is six generations of chipset newer and 2013 Intel has no problem with it.
I would readily understand it not working if a user attempts to run a pair of 4k displays off each DP header or something like that since the Displayport 1.2 spec is limited to (4) 1920x1200 off the same daisy chain. But we are't even doing that...we're running a pair of 1920x1200 off one header and we cannot activate a single other 1920x1200 all by itself off the alternate DP 1.2 header.
https://www.displayport.org/cables/driving-multiple-displays-from-a-single-displayport-output/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Eyefinity
DELL-Chris M
Community Manager
Community Manager
•
54.2K Posts
0
January 14th, 2020 06:00
I found that data above in the internal training page for AMD video cards. I do not know of a Dell external article that discusses this video card. All the support site shows is driver links. I just scanned 6 pages on this Optiplex board and only see DELL-Cares posting replies. But you cannot private message them since they are are a collective group. You will need to contact Dell support, enter an in warranty Optiplex service tag number to be routed to the Optiplex queue. Then ask them about the specifications I listed above concerning the usage of that video card.
sdfg2345
12 Posts
0
January 14th, 2020 08:00
@DELL-Chris M
Shame Dell isn't embracing shared knowledge on this forum with mods for Optiplex product like they are for lesser product lines. I appreciate your checking the internal literature that you were able and at least re-affirming it's Displayport 1.2 like the online spec sheets for the Optiplex unit states. I didn't see how it could be any other way since daisy chaining 2 displays off one header works as expected with DP 1.2 enabled on the first monitor in the chain.
For others observing a 3rd display won't activate, also know it can't be said it's a bandwidth limitation shared between the combined headers because two displays function with both headers linking at 5.4Gbps x4 lanes each and 5.4Gbps x4 satisfies 2 monitors off a single header just as well.
I realized this because the AMD software menu shows the link rate to the monitors as 5.4Gbps x4 lanes which matches DP 1.2 spec exactly
https://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ICCE-Presentation-on-VESA-DisplayPort.pdf
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14590/vesa-announces-displayport-20-standard-bandwidth-for-8k-monitors-beyond
We know 5.4Gbps x4 lanes is accurate because the alternate no daisy chain direct attached monitor shows 1.62 x4 lanes when we turn DP 1.2 off & when we turn DP 1.2 back on it bumps up to 5.4Gbps x4 lanes as one would expect.
speedstep
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
47K Posts
1
January 14th, 2020 10:00
R5 430 is not an RX400 RX500 Gpu.
R5 430 GPU Name Oland
Architecture GCN 1.0
Release Date Jun 30th, 2016
PCI-E Bus X8 card.
You don't have the bandwidth to use 3 displays with this card.
This is a R5 430 64 bit card not a 256 bit RX480 card.
384 cores
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
DisplayPort 1.2 outputs can actually run several displays from just one port. This feature requires specialized display hubs.
https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-Port-DisplayPort-MST-Hub/dp/B00JLRBB8I/
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
17K Posts
0
January 14th, 2020 15:00
Good trouble-shooting.
However, I think that would be enough proof for me (don't get mad ... it's just my opinion).
sdfg2345
12 Posts
0
January 14th, 2020 18:00
@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.)
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
17K Posts
0
January 14th, 2020 20:00
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
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
17K Posts
0
January 15th, 2020 20:00
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).
speedstep
8 Wizard
8 Wizard
•
47K Posts
0
January 16th, 2020 09:00
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
https://www.pny.com/nvidia-quadro-p400
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=nvidia+quadro+p400&hvadid=78408974580364
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.
https://www.club-3d.com/en/detail/2409/multi_stream_transport_(mst)_hub_displayportt_1.2_triple_monitor/
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.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180128110213/http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/oem/r5#
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/amd-radeon-r5-430-2gb-half-height-dp-dpcustomer-install/apd/490-bemx/graphic-video-cards
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.
https://www.extron.com/product/videotools.aspx
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.