6950 120hz in second dvi slot?

XFX replaced my 5870's with two of these but it looks like only the first dvi and the display ports support 120hz. I am running 3x22" monitors in eyefinity and had no problems with the same setup working with all three monitors/setup on my 5870's. All will get 120hz on the first dvi but none on the second. I find it weird AMD would downgrade the functionality like this and I really don't want to buy another 90$ dual link displayport to dvi adapter.

Fyi, not using in crossfire yet.

I googled around and couldn't find anything. Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

It is the case. Sorry.

blasko229 said:

XFX replaced my 5870's with two of these but it looks like only the first dvi and the display ports support 120hz. I am running 3x22" monitors in eyefinity and had no problems with the same setup working with all three monitors/setup on my 5870's. All will get 120hz on the first dvi but none on the second. I find it weird AMD would downgrade the functionality like this and I really don't want to buy another 90$ dual link displayport to dvi adapter.

Fyi, not using in crossfire yet.

I googled around and couldn't find anything. Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

Click to expand...

Your going to need another mini display port to dual link adapter. The 2nd Dvi port is a single link dvi port.

You may also notice screen tearing on the desktop because you'll be using different connections which is common on Cayman offerings. I believe the Saphire 6950 flex eddition model with 3 mini dp actually fixes the issue. BTW I also run 120hz in eyefinity and don't notice the tearing in game, only on the desktop and only rarely at times.

Thanks guys. I like using display ports for the size and bandwidth but I don't think they're anywhere near common enough to be 'required' for a good experience. I've also had nothing but bugs with the Catalyst software so may try switching to team green.

question to you guys out there. why did amd choose to include mini display port when 3 dvi with 2 hdmi can do the job with eyefinity? i find it strange that we have to buy an adapter for the mini display port just to have eyefinity. wouldnt the 3 dvi and hdmi ports be enough bandwidth?

canmanone said:

question to you guys out there. why did amd choose to include mini display port when 3 dvi with 2 hdmi can do the job with eyefinity? i find it strange that we have to buy an adapter for the mini display port just to have eyefinity. wouldnt the 3 dvi and hdmi ports be enough bandwidth?

Click to expand...

has been said countless times. HDMI is outputting from the same source as DVI, Display port is a new standard that can be added onto the board, and be used in conjunction with the DVI controllers, but the same can't be said for adding more then one DVI O/P controller onto one single card.

Most video cards early adopt new port types that can be backward compatible with an adapter. Think back to all the cards putting dvi on there when most monitors were still analog connections. I'm sure there's a technical reason as well, but my take on this has always been that in the chicken and egg evolution of video card and monitor tech, video cards usually come first.

People will buy a video card that supports under-exposed and new tech so long as it still runs their hardware. However, people will not buy a monitor that doesn't work with their current video cards. So, for tech to evolve and new ports to be adapted, the video card manufacturers will move first.

Remember that the normal users see no real difference tho - they will still plug their 1 monitor into the same port. This only comes at the expense of the fringe users (eyefinity) having to buy additional adapters. However, they probably figure that this is a smaller segment, so either these "power users" will be the ones adopting the newer tech, or they will not be dissuaded from buying the card because of the need for an adapter when they're dropping the money on multiple monitors and high end parts to drive such a resolution.

displayport was a joint venture between monitor manufacturers, and video display adapter manufacturers. it offers really neat stuff and monitors etc were quick to begin using them.

displayport permits auxiliary data to be routed through it, along with uncompressed 7.1 surround sound. Additionally, there is enough bandwidth and support for daisy chaining monitors off of one port, and you'd never know the difference

big reason why the monitor makers want it is it permits them to build monitors much cheaper as they do not need to use internal LVDS links. so they are in a 'big rush' to get people to not need dvi anymore

just like VGA to DVI, it always starts off with using adapters, unfortunately.... its the way the tech kind of needs to go as if they 'wait for the monitors to be common' the monitor makers will 'wait for the video card support'

Bandwidth 1.62, 2.7, or 5.4 Gbit/s data rate per lane; 1, 2, or 4 lanes; (effective total 5.184, 8.64, or 17.28 Gbit/s for 4-lane link); 1 Mbit/s or 720 Mbit/s for the auxiliary channel.

Click to expand...

Card makers like it because they're capable of output being done with out using TMDS / clocks on the dispaly heads. It's actually a bit cheaper in the long run for card makers because DP contains an embedded clock. So you can stack multiple DPs on a single card w/o too much worry (see Eyefinity 6 Editions and the new 6xxx series ATI/AMD cards) about how to providing the "guts" for all those DVI outputs.

nVidia is starting to use to DP on reference boards as well, but it is not part of a supported Surround configuration...as yet.

canmanone said:

question to you guys out there. why did amd choose to include mini display port when 3 dvi with 2 hdmi can do the job with eyefinity? i find it strange that we have to buy an adapter for the mini display port just to have eyefinity. wouldnt the 3 dvi and hdmi ports be enough bandwidth?

Click to expand...

out of room on the panel methinks

Also, in another sad turn of events, none of AMD's cards, 5k or 6k, support 4k x 2k resolution over HDMI, even though the it is supposedly '1.4a' compatible. If it supported 1.4a you could get an HDMI -> DL DVI adapter and avoid the DP -> DL DVI adapters, but sadly, this isn't the case.

Source: Anandtech's short article about the 6700 series says that the entire 6000 series doesn't really support 4k x 2k resolution. By extension of that I take it that it won't have the bandwidth to do 120hz over HDMI.

EDIT: Hey wait, AMD DOES support 3D in 1080p, which is 120hz combined. Doesn't that mean that the HDMI should be capable of doing 120hz if you use an adapter?

XacTactX said:

Also, in another sad turn of events, none of AMD's cards, 5k or 6k, support 4k x 2k resolution over HDMI, even though the it is supposedly '1.4a' compatible. If it supported 1.4a you could get an HDMI -> DL DVI adapter and avoid the DP -> DL DVI adapters, but sadly, this isn't the case.

Source: Anandtech's short article about the 6700 series says that the entire 6000 series doesn't really support 4k x 2k resolution. By extension of that I take it that it won't have the bandwidth to do 120hz over HDMI.

EDIT: Hey wait, AMD DOES support 3D in 1080p, which is 120hz combined. Doesn't that mean that the HDMI should be capable of doing 120hz if you use an adapter?

Click to expand...

120Hz is doable over DP and DVI provided they are all running DualLink. DP - DL-DVI and DP will do 120Hz.

That's true, but I believe it would benefit OP greatly to not have to buy a $90 adapter. Also, I'm not sure about what AMD has done about Vsync being broken over DP if using adapters and clock generators. If he could avoid it I'd suggest that.