Why such low resolution limits on AMD Fusion APU/Mobo?

D

DaRuSsIaMaN

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
1,216
I was briefly considering getting the Asus E35M1-M Pro, which is a microATX mobo with an embedded E-350 APU. The fact that I use my PC so lightly (not really a gamer) and that it is so cheap for a whole cpu + motherboard made this a viable option for me -- in principle.

But I was looking at the detailed specs (linked above), and I noticed that both the DVI and the HDMI ports are limited to only 1920x1080 max resolution. This is very disappointing to me because I definitely want to be able to use a 1920x1200 monitor. (I don't have it yet but that will be my next purchase.) And hopefully even two of them, money permitting.

So this puts the board out of consideration for me, but I'm still left with the question: Umm, why?? What is the reason for this low limit? Is it the weakness of the integrated gpu? I thought the whole point of the AMD APU was that the gpu is supposed to be quite decent. Is it something else to blame? Something about the motherboard rather than the E-350 APU? Also, the resolution limit on the non-digital VGA port is much higher. Again, why is this? On VGA it's okay but on the digital ports high resolution is impossible? I don't get it. By comparison, the P8H67-M EVO supports 1920x1200 resolution limits on those ports, just as I want. So what's going on here?

Thanks!
 
HDMI. You will find that most displays when using HDMI will default to a max of 1920x1080. I am pretty sure the output through DVI will do 1920x1200 and up.
 
it should do the max resolution of the current monitor your on, it should do a higher res.
 
uhmmm....

because 1920X1080 is 1080i or HD quality there is no higher standard????

if you run 1200 then you simply get a black line at the top and bottom, otherwise your just streching a 1080 into 1200. The 10% strech probably isn't noticed in movies to you etc...

Also from your own link

Supports RGB with max. resolution 2560X1600 @ 60Hz
so 1920x1200 is supported
 
That does seem odd. It would make sense to at least go to 1920x1200, if not 2560x1600 over HDMI/DVI.

I wonder if you could force higher resolutions.
 
Not really for HDMI, because the maximum standard resolution for HDMI is 1080P. It also has to do with the bandwidth of HDMI (HDMI 1.3 that is) being equivalent to that of single-link DVI. Dual-link DVI has twice the bandwidth, so it can support higher resolutions/refresh rates (for 120 Hz monitors). Not sure what the resolution limits on HDMI 1.3/single-link DVI are though... I'm pretty sure it's above 1080P.
 
RGB is another way of saying VGA. VGA is the connection type, RGB is the signal type. RGB is generally what is sent on VGA cables.
 
Tsumi said:
Not really for HDMI, because the maximum standard resolution for HDMI is 1080P.
Click to expand...
No it's not. :p

Single link HDMI resolution of 1920x1200 60p has been supported in HDMI spec versions 1.0 (made 9 years ago!) and newer. "1920x1080" max has often been placed on cables and boards, even when 1920x1200 works. It does seem very common for some products to state 1920x1080 max with audio pass-through, so if you're using audio pass-through don't count on 1920x1200 support.
 
pxc said:
No it's not. :p

Single link HDMI resolution of 1920x1200 60p has been supported in HDMI spec versions 1.0 (made 9 years ago!) and newer. "1920x1080" max has often been placed on cables and boards, even when 1920x1200 works. It does seem very common for some products to state 1920x1080 max with audio pass-through, so if you're using audio pass-through don't count on 1920x1200 support.
Click to expand...

That's why I said 1080P is the maximum STANDARD. Anything larger than 1080P is non-standard resolutions for HDMI, although the resolutions above that are fairly standardized.
 
Apparently, the display controllers used in the Hudson-M1 FCH only support single-link DVI/HDMI. I think the Hudson-M3/D1 FCH will support dual-link. Remember, these E350 boards are intended for Nettop and low-end HTPC use.
 
Tsumi said:
That's why I said 1080P is the maximum STANDARD.
Click to expand...
But it's not the "maximum STANDARD." The maximum in even the 1.0 spec was 1920x1200 over single link. 1920x1080 is not mentioned as a maximum in the spec.

I can think of a few reasons why some devices list 1920x1080 as maximum support, but I'd rather know for sure than make up random "facts." ;)
 
Wikipedia, on HDMI resolutions:

5572010695_06dcd67dd7_o.jpg


So, unless its HDMI 1.0–1.2a, HDMI is not the problem...

I can't help but think that you have bad information on the E-350. I have seen several tests with it at 1920x1200 desktop resolution...

It should be able to handle up to 2560x1600 over DVI (VGA typically tops out at 2048x1536).

I can't give you an absolute guarantee, but to me your information just sounds wrong. Maybe you read the section for UVD handling up to 1920x1080? This would make sense. UVD is the hardware video decoding and it would - at least today - not need to decode any video at above that resolution, ans it would be difficult to find :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1037045038 said:
So, unless its HDMI 1.0–1.2a, HDMI is not the problem...

...

I can't give you an absolute guarantee, but to me your information just sounds wrong. Maybe you read the section for UVD handling up to 1920x1080?
Click to expand...

Well, what do you mean 'my' information? I'm just relating what the ASUS site says. Would you please click the link so you can see what I'm reading? Then we can verify whether I misinterpreted anything or not. I do hope this information is wrong.

Could it be possible that these boards are using the old 1.0-1.2a HDMI standard??

******************************************************************************************

Kind of off-topic, but...

pxc said:
No it's not. :p

Single link HDMI resolution of 1920x1200 60p has been supported in HDMI spec versions 1.0 (made 9 years ago!) and newer. "1920x1080" max has often been placed on cables and boards, even when 1920x1200 works. It does seem very common for some products to state 1920x1080 max with audio pass-through, so if you're using audio pass-through don't count on 1920x1200 support.
Click to expand...

Btw, what exactly is audio pass through? Was trying to look it up online but kind of confused. It's if you want to have both video and sound going through the single cable? And I'm getting the impression it would only be relevant to receivers "passing through" signal from some other source to something else. How would it be relevant to computers, where the signal actually originates? Or am I misunderstanding this?
 
Passthrough is when the audio is sent (usually via HDMI) to the receiving device along with the visuals, instead of via the audio ports. So the sound will come out of the TVs speakers rather than the computers.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Well, what do you mean 'my' information? I'm just relating what the ASUS site says
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, and I don't understand it either.

My best guess is that either the marketing guys got it wrong on the ASUS web page, or the ASUS version of the board is somehow restricted.

Nowhere else have I read of the E-350 being limited to 1080p
 
Ok, let's look at DVI in more detail. From Wikipedia as well as here, this is the difference:




Now, when I look at the pictures of the E35M1-Pro...



... it clearly looks like a dual link DVI port! Which means it should top out at 2560x1600, according to the above links. But I also noticed that the ASUS specs on their site specifically state "DVI Single-link" (written in the same section where I read off the other specs I mentioned in first post).


So WTF?? :confused: :mad: Are ASUS people really st0000pid or what's going on here??

So annoying....
 
The looks of the port don't determine whether it can support dual link DVI or not. The AMD 6900 series video cards have 2 dual link DVI-I ports according to the picture, but the specs clearly state 1 dual link, 1 single link.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
... it clearly looks like a dual link DVI port! Which means it should top out at 2560x1600, according to the above links. But I also noticed that the ASUS specs on their site specifically state "DVI Single-link" (written in the same section where I read off the other specs I mentioned in first post).


So WTF?? :confused: :mad: Are ASUS people really st0000pid or what's going on here??

So annoying....
Click to expand...

Also consider that just because a display adapter is single link DVI only (not saying that this one is, it's just an example) does not mean that the holes for dual link DVI would not be present. If that were the case, you could not connect a dual link cable from a dual link display to a single link adapter, even though that adapter could drive the dual link display (albeit at a lower resolution).

So for the sake of intercompatibility you'd ALWAYS want the holes for dual link connectors on a single link video card, even if they are unused, otherwise the dual link cable couldn't plug in...
 
Oh. Well then that explains that, I guess. So it must be a single link DVI with the extra holes. But what the fuck, why would they not put in the extra effort to make it a dual link DVI?? They put in the effort to have "high-quality conductive polymer capacitors"... whatever that means. How much would it take to have a dual-link DVI port?
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Oh. Well then that explains that, I guess. So it must be a single link DVI with the extra holes. But what the fuck, why would they not put in the extra effort to make it a dual link DVI?? They put in the effort to have "high-quality conductive polymer capacitors"... whatever that means. How much would it take to have a dual-link DVI port?
Click to expand...

I'm still leaning towards it being a mistake on the webpage. I have seen many of these reviewed fine at 1920x1200, and I assume they work well up to 2560x1600.

That being said "high-quality conductive polymer capacitors" doesn't really mean anything. It's just marketing gibberish to make it sound cooler. Just like MSI's "Military class" stamp, cause I have seen an MSI motherboard stamped with "military class" all over it, and it sure as hell did not have class 3 solder joints per IPC-610...
 
I am telling you guys that for support reason there is a reidiciously large number of monitors that users use not including TV's that will default and not go any higher then 1920x1080 when using HDMI even if the panels resolution itself is 1920x1200. This was before 1080P started to become standard across the board for monitors as of late.

Its probably an ass covering spec so that when someone plugs their new computer using HDMI into a monitor that had been doing 1200 before they can't blame the computer because they said that the HDMI only supported 1080. For others with a 16:10 monitor that isn't crap they get an extra gift in actually hitting 1200.

But its still a guess and wouldn't recommend getting it without someone else verifying it first.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
I was briefly considering getting the Asus E35M1-M Pro, which is a microATX mobo with an embedded E-350 APU. The fact that I use my PC so lightly (not really a gamer) and that it is so cheap for a whole cpu + motherboard made this a viable option for me -- in principle.

But I was looking at the detailed specs (linked above), and I noticed that both the DVI and the HDMI ports are limited to only 1920x1080 max resolution. This is very disappointing to me because I definitely want to be able to use a 1920x1200 monitor. (I don't have it yet but that will be my next purchase.) And hopefully even two of them, money permitting.

So this puts the board out of consideration for me, but I'm still left with the question: Umm, why?? What is the reason for this low limit? Is it the weakness of the integrated gpu? I thought the whole point of the AMD APU was that the gpu is supposed to be quite decent. Is it something else to blame? Something about the motherboard rather than the E-350 APU? Also, the resolution limit on the non-digital VGA port is much higher. Again, why is this? On VGA it's okay but on the digital ports high resolution is impossible? I don't get it. By comparison, the P8H67-M EVO supports 1920x1200 resolution limits on those ports, just as I want. So what's going on here?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

its the HD standard resolution. HD movies play mostly in that resolution so there's no need and probably the onboard will have trouble running it at 1600p
 
Topweasel said:
I am telling you guys that for support reason there is a reidiciously large number of monitors that users use not including TV's that will default and not go any higher then 1920x1080 when using HDMI even if the panels resolution itself is 1920x1200. This was before 1080P started to become standard across the board for monitors as of late.

Its probably an ass covering spec so that when someone plugs their new computer using HDMI into a monitor that had been doing 1200 before they can't blame the computer because they said that the HDMI only supported 1080. For others with a 16:10 monitor that isn't crap they get an extra gift in actually hitting 1200.

But its still a guess and wouldn't recommend getting it without someone else verifying it first.
Click to expand...

depends what data your talking about. For games it don't sent a huge amount of frames to the device. Either 60 or 120 frames through Hdmi at any resolution
 
Well, I agree in that I think it must be at least partially a mistake, because even single link DVI goes up to 1920x1200. So, at least for DVI, I don't know why it would say 1080p max. For HDMI, might be an ass-covering spec like Topweasel was saying. The question now is whether either of the two ports (DVI or HDMI) are capable of going higher than 1920x1200. I'm thinking they must be single link for whatever reason, despite having the appearance of a dual link dvi, because the spec specifically states "DVI Single-link".

Also ...

JMccovery said:
Apparently, the display controllers used in the Hudson-M1 FCH only support single-link DVI/HDMI. I think the Hudson-M3/D1 FCH will support dual-link. Remember, these E350 boards are intended for Nettop and low-end HTPC use.
Click to expand...

Now that I read up this single vs. dual link stuff, what you said actually makes sense to me now. Do you happen to have a source for that, JMccovery? This is probably the answer to all of this. I tried looking it up but can't find anything very useful. There's this hazy preview from fudzilla, which is very short on those details I want. There's also this bit from a motherboard review:
HTPC enthusiasts also get AMD's latest UVD 3 technology, with support for HDMI 1.4a that provides enough bandwidth for everything up to Blu-ray 3D. Dual digital display outputs are also finally supported by AMD IGPs, but it's down to the manufacturer if they want to use them.
Click to expand...
What do you make of that? To me that sounds as if every E-350-equipped motherboard should have support for HDMI 1.4a, which would support higher resolutions (the review was talking specifically about the E-350 APU at that point).

Thanks!
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Well, I agree in that I think it must be at least partially a mistake, because even single link DVI goes up to 1920x1200. So, at least for DVI, I don't know why it would say 1080p max. For HDMI, might be an ass-covering spec like Topweasel was saying. The question now is whether either of the two ports (DVI or HDMI) are capable of going higher than 1920x1200. I'm thinking they must be single link for whatever reason, despite having the appearance of a dual link dvi, because the spec specifically states "DVI Single-link".

Also ...



Now that I read up this single vs. dual link stuff, what you said actually makes sense to me now. Do you happen to have a source for that, JMccovery? This is probably the answer to all of this. I tried looking it up but can't find anything very useful. There's this hazy preview from fudzilla, which is very short on those details I want. There's also this bit from a motherboard review:

What do you make of that? To me that sounds as if every E-350-equipped motherboard should have support for HDMI 1.4a, which would support higher resolutions (the review was talking specifically about the E-350 APU at that point).

Thanks!
Click to expand...

the apu is a rock solid investment it does 1080p with out problems. their is not a need for it to support a higher than 1080p resolution at this time. the apu is a 6300 series gpu fused with a bobcat cpu on a single piece of silicone. its does exactly what it is intended to do want a higher resolution get a discrete card though its really doubtful you would need one.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Now that I read up this single vs. dual link stuff, what you said actually makes sense to me now. Do you happen to have a source for that, JMccovery? This is probably the answer to all of this. I tried looking it up but can't find anything very useful. There's this hazy preview from fudzilla, which is very short on those details I want.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I couldn't find anyting from AMD about the capabilities (or lack there of) of the Hudson-M1, also known as the AMD A45 FCH. I guessed that. since the M1 was mainly made for netbook use, which don't use panels higher than 1080p. It seems like the Hudson-M3/D1 has been delayed for Llano's launch, and apparently, board mfgs didn't want to wait.
http://www.fudzilla.com/motherboard/item/21333-amd-hudson-fch-comes-in-seven-flavours
 
Last edited:
Spooony said:
depends what data your talking about. For games it don't sent a huge amount of frames to the device. Either 60 or 120 frames through Hdmi at any resolution
Click to expand...

I didn't mention data capacity at any point. That platform and board is meant to create and extremely cost effective WHS/HTPC box. Since its targeted at TV's and users plugging them into low cost LCD panels, all the TV's and most low cost panel use a max of 1080 over HDMI it would make sense basically warn everyone that when they use HDMI they could be restricted to such.
 
JMccovery said:
I'll be honest, I couldn't find anyting from AMD about the capabilities (or lack there of) of the Hudson-M1, also known as the AMD A45 FCH. I guessed that. since the M1 was mainly made for netbook use, which don't use panels higher than 1080p. It seems like the Hudson-M3/D1 has been delayed for Llano's launch, and apparently, board mfgs didn't want to wait.
Click to expand...

Hmm ok. Well, do you or anyone know these details for the intel side? I ended up going down the intel route -- that is, already ordered a 2500k last night and pairing it with a H67 mobo to use the IGPU. I had the asus P8H67-M Evo picked out, and my main question about the resolution limits applies there too, because this board is also limited to single-link resolutions for HDMI and DVI according to the specs (1920x1200 max). So is it intel's H67 chipset that only supports single link DVI and HDMI? Yet that board also has a display port, which is listed at up to 2560x1600 .... That's good news but why the discrepancy?? I just wish some hardware website actually wrote an article specifically to explain this. Yes, maxius is probably right that there isn't much of a need for higher resolutions for vast majority of users (with this hardware's likely use, anyway), but I'd still like to know what exactly is going on here.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Hmm ok. Well, do you or anyone know these details for the intel side? I ended up going down the intel route -- that is, already ordered a 2500k last night and pairing it with a H67 mobo to use the IGPU. I had the asus P8H67-M Evo picked out, and my main question about the resolution limits applies there too, because this board is also limited to single-link resolutions for HDMI and DVI according to the specs (1920x1200 max). So is it intel's H67 chipset that only supports single link DVI and HDMI? Yet that board also has a display port, which is listed at up to 2560x1600 .... That's good news but why the discrepancy?? I just wish some hardware website actually wrote an article specifically to explain this. Yes, maxius is probably right that there isn't much of a need for higher resolutions for vast majority of users (with this hardware's likely use, anyway), but I'd still like to know what exactly is going on here.
Click to expand...

I guess it is just for product segmentation purposes, because I know that the GeForce 6100 board that I'm currently using, and the previous 780G boards I've had support dual-link DVI. The P8H67 (non M) doesn't have a list of maximum resolutions. I wonder what Asus means by this:
Asus P8H67 Specifications Page said:
Due to CrossFireX™ limitation, DO NOT use the PCIe x1 slot when you install two CrossFireX™ graphics cards on both the PCIe x16 slots to set up a CrossFireX™ cofiguration.
Click to expand...
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Hmm ok. Well, do you or anyone know these details for the intel side? I ended up going down the intel route -- that is, already ordered a 2500k last night and pairing it with a H67 mobo to use the IGPU. I had the asus P8H67-M Evo picked out, and my main question about the resolution limits applies there too, because this board is also limited to single-link resolutions for HDMI and DVI according to the specs (1920x1200 max). So is it intel's H67 chipset that only supports single link DVI and HDMI? Yet that board also has a display port, which is listed at up to 2560x1600 .... That's good news but why the discrepancy?? I just wish some hardware website actually wrote an article specifically to explain this. Yes, maxius is probably right that there isn't much of a need for higher resolutions for vast majority of users (with this hardware's likely use, anyway), but I'd still like to know what exactly is going on here.
Click to expand...

It is probably like my MSI H67 board. It can only do 2560 x 1600 out of the display port. The DVI only does 1920 x 1200. It doesn't matter for me since my screen has a display port., but it took me a few minutes to figure out what was wrong when I hooked up the dual-link DVI and couldn't do the native resolution.
 
JMccovery said:
I guess it is just for product segmentation purposes, because I know that the GeForce 6100 board that I'm currently using, and the previous 780G boards I've had support dual-link DVI. The P8H67 (non M) doesn't have a list of maximum resolutions. I wonder what Asus means by this:
Click to expand...

Because H67 boards do not split up the direct 16x PCI-E lanes to the graphics card. The second PCI-E x16 slot probably gets 4 lanes from the southbridge, which is shared with PCI-E x1 slots, USB ports, SATA ports, PCI slots, etc. Install a card on the PCI-E x1 slot, and the PCI-E x16 slot will probably go from x4 to x1 mode, majorly reducing performance. That's why nVidia does not allow SLI on H67, because the configuration is like this. AMD on the other hand is a bit more flexible. As such, Crossfire on an H67 chipset will be slower than on a P67 chipset.
 
So I poked around some more and I found this on the tech spec site for the Asrock version of the board:

Code: 
- Supports HDMI Technology with max. resolution up to 1920x1200 (1080P)
- Supports DVI with max. resolution up to 1920x1200 @ 75Hz
- Supports D-Sub with max. resolution up to 2048x1536 @ 85Hz

So it looks as if digital outputs max out at 1920x1200 (so a 16:10 screen ought to be fine) and the analog output maxes out at 2048x1536.

This is a little bit surprising, but I guess they figure that next to no-one will be using a 27" or 30" LCD with one of these...
 
Zarathustra[H];1037115726 said:
So I poked around some more and I found this on the tech spec site for the Asrock version of the board:

Code: 
- Supports HDMI Technology with max. resolution up to 1920x1200 (1080P)
- Supports DVI with max. resolution up to 1920x1200 @ 75Hz
- Supports D-Sub with max. resolution up to 2048x1536 @ 85Hz
So it looks as if digital outputs max out at 1920x1200 (so a 16:10 screen ought to be fine) and the analog output maxes out at 2048x1536.

This is a little bit surprising, but I guess they figure that next to no-one will be using a 27" or 30" LCD with one of these...
Click to expand...

I think any Brazos board that supports DisplayPort supports up to 2560x1600. When Llano ships with the A70/75M there will be support for Dual-Link DVI: max 2560x1600 and HDMI 1.4a: max 1920x1080/1200 3D. There also may be Brazos Nettop/HTPC systems that pair Zacate and A70, just have to wait.
 
The only Brazos system that I am aware of which supports 2560x1600 resolution (through a DisplayPort connector) is the fit-PC3. All the others have only HDMI or single-link DVI at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top