One of the USPs of some earlier Radeons was that they could run 6 monitors, usually off 6 mini-DP ports. The Fury X has 4 ports. And a completely blank plate. Why not use that blank plate to host another 3 DP ports? Add a DVI port too if you insist.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Fury X - why so few ports?
- Thread starter Quartz-1
- Start date
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Basically because "reasons".
That and they want to sell you DP-to-something else converters.
That and they want to sell you DP-to-something else converters.
DisplayPort MST - been in AMD cards since the 6000 series. Granted there hasn't been a lot of vendor support for it, but it lets you daisy-chain or hub up to 4 monitors from a single DisplayPort output.
The Fury X also supports up to 6 displays, provided you use MST to connect some of them.
Not many cards, even before MST, had 6 independent output ports. I can't think of any reference cards (maybe in the workstation lineups?).
The Fury X also supports up to 6 displays, provided you use MST to connect some of them.
Not many cards, even before MST, had 6 independent output ports. I can't think of any reference cards (maybe in the workstation lineups?).
DVI is phased out.
3 party waterblock on the card make it single slot which I like myself.
No. Even the Firepros only offer full bandwidth DP connection to 3 monitors. If you go with more the extra ports share bandwidth. For example you can run 3xUHD@60Hz. You connect a 4th then 2 of them will be limited to 30Hz, etc...
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Because the mini dp ports suck ass?
I'm happy to see those fuckers go,even if it means less ports
I'm happy to see those fuckers go,even if it means less ports
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
I wish they would have put 6 miniDP on the back of it. I don't want to fiddle with HUB's, plus with having that many ports on the card, I wouldn't have to worry about running out of bandwidth on each port.
The current implementation only allows for 3x4K screens @ 60Hz.
The highest-end single GPU reference I/Os have changed strangely over the last couple generations.
How do we go from this 5870:
to this 6970:
to this 7970:
to this R9 290X:
to this R9 Fury X?:
The current implementation only allows for 3x4K screens @ 60Hz.
The highest-end single GPU reference I/Os have changed strangely over the last couple generations.
How do we go from this 5870:
to this 6970:
to this 7970:
to this R9 290X:
to this R9 Fury X?:
Last edited:
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
I wish they would have put 6 miniDP on the back of it. I don't want to fiddle with HUB's, plus with having that many ports on the card, I wouldn't have to worry about running out of bandwidth on each port.
The current implementation only allows for 3x4K screens @ 60Hz.
The highest-end single GPU reference I/Os have changed strangely over the last couple generations.
How do we go from this 5870:
to this 6970:
to this 7970:
to this R9 290X:
to this R9 Fury X?:
The 5870 Eyefinity 6 card was ahead of its time, and still is apparently. 6 mini-DP should be standard by now.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,703
You know AMD could easily ship 6x mini DP ports they just have to include the adapters for FREE. But they don't want to do that because it would cost them money. There are a lot of ways this can be sliced. But ultimate if you want to blame you need to blame the display port standards people as they are the ones whom have failed to make their powerful and flexible and desirable to display makers.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
You know what? I'm still using my 5870 E6 card in the wifes rig and she won't hook up more than one monitor to it. She hurts me.
SamiiRoss
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2012
- Messages
- 719
He got a titan x and he is complaining about fury x why?
Because people approach me for advice about this sort of thing and it's nice to have answers, you know?
And just because I have a TX in this rig doesn't mean I won't consider a Fury X for another.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Most people use just one or two monitors, so this saves money.
Also, with the exception of the 5870 , eyefinity, all of those cards were limited to four ports being used simultaneously. So we're not going backwards, since the e6 card was a promotional niche device.
Also, with the exception of the 5870 , eyefinity, all of those cards were limited to four ports being used simultaneously. So we're not going backwards, since the e6 card was a promotional niche device.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
This is incorrect. All cards 5000 series and up can output 6 video streams regardless of I/O. You will most likely need a DP MST hub. DP 1.0/1.1 MST hubs don't exist though, the closest thing to it makes a single large surface and externally divides up the image between monitors (extremely similar to the TH2Go). DP 1.2+ MST hub can accept multiple video streams and send them to each monitor separately, in which is cool but, you end up dividing the total bandwidth of the port.
Edit: Also while we're talking about cool features, the fire pro series can create eyefinity group between cards either in the same system or through networked systems.
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
defaultluser said:
Wow, didn't know personal insults were allowed, or actually helped towards useful conversation.
Maybe you don't find having more than 3 displays useful, but others do. Also, the 6990 had 4 DP and 1 DL-DVI and that wasn't a "Eyefinity Edition" card. I'm also not going to argue that using a lot of monitors isn't a niche, but if you like Eyefinity with 3 monitors, there's a high chance that you'd like it with 5. Then there's the person who may only play games on a single monitor, but used the extra monitors for desktop space.
Also, the 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition wasn't the only 5000 series card with more than 2 DP.
Here's a list of cards I researched:
5870 2GB Eyefinity 6 (Reference) [6xMiniDP]
XFX 5970 BLACK 4GB Eyefinity 6 Edition [6xMiniDP]
PowerColor 5770 1GB Eyefinity 5 Edition [5xMiniDP]
XFX 5770 1GB Eyefinity 5 Edition [5xMiniDP]
Yes they all say "Eyefinity Edition" but that just means it uses more native DP.
And if we go to the 6000 series there's even more cards that can use more than "4 ports simultaneously."
SAPPHIRE FleX Radeon HD 6950 2GB [2xMiniDP(1.2),1xDVI(DL),1xDVI(SL),1xHDMI]
SAPPHIRE FleX Radeon HD 6970 2GB [2xMiniDP(1.2),1xDVI(DL),1xDVI(SL),1xHDMI]
6990 4GB (Reference) [4xMiniDP,1xDL-DVI]
PowerColor 6870 2GB Eyefinity 6 Edition [6xMiniDP]
ASUS EAH6950 DCUII 6950 2GB[4xDP,2xSL-DVI]*
ASUS EAH6970 DCUII 6970 2GB[4xDP,2xSL-DVI]*
*One DVI can be a Dual Link Port, but it disables one of the DisplayPorts.
There's even fewer "Eyefinity Editions" and there are even 2 cards that can use 3xDVI/HDMI and 2xMiniDP right out that box.
If you are trying to win an argument, back it up with facts, not insulting those who you don't agree with.
EDIT (Due to EDIT from the user above):
UltraAV® DisplayPort to DVI Multi-Monitor Adapter
UltraAV® DisplayPort to DisplayPort Multi-Monitor Adapter
TripleHead2Go DP Edition
To name a few "DP 1.1/1.0 Hubs". You know that reading thing you told me to do. Go back and do it as well. I even explain how they work and name the TH2Go.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,451
Didnt even make it to page 2 without a personal attack. Seems all too common these days.
I have to agree that Eyefinity with 5 monitors is great. But the problem I found is that not too many games support monitors in portrait mode. I have since went back to Eyefinity with 3 monitors, that way if the game doesn't support such large ratio, I can play the game on a single monitor.
It would have been nice for AMD to put 6 mini dp connectors on the furyx since it is their flagship card. That way people couple run Eyefinity with 5 monitors if they wanted too. As for the price they are charging, it wouldn't of killed them to include the adapters. It would probably then been seen to be worth the money.
It would have been nice for AMD to put 6 mini dp connectors on the furyx since it is their flagship card. That way people couple run Eyefinity with 5 monitors if they wanted too. As for the price they are charging, it wouldn't of killed them to include the adapters. It would probably then been seen to be worth the money.
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,068
The 5870 6 miniDP didn't sell. 99% dont use more than 3 monitors.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
The way I understand it is AMD now only permits 6 mini-DP ports on their FirePro workstation class cards now.
However they should just do it for consumer card, and Flagship cards especially.
However they should just do it for consumer card, and Flagship cards especially.
They don't include them because nothing is free. The end user always wears the cost and almost nobody needs it.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,703
lol do I really need to describe this? People pay for a GPU and they will only pay for what they perceive as value for most that means they would compare directly to NVidia, this would lock AMDs price on a certain card and therefore the adapters would be free to the consumer but lower AMDs profit. Which is why they don't do it.
AMD is not cutting costs. it is cutting sales.
there are quite a few potential buyers that need an analog solution capable of more than pedestrian 1920x1080@60Hz. And AMD ignores this by refusing to put a DVI-I port on the cards. there is no adapter to solve this issue for high end CRT owners.
there many buyers that could benefit from native HDMI 2.0. But AMD insists on keeping the ancient HDMI 1.4 port. this in turn keeps owners of 4k Tvs out of the AMD ecosystem for the time being as Fury X performance advantage is not worth the hassle and costs of looking for DP> HDMI 2.0 adapter.
I do understand that the costs of adding HDMI 2.0 and DL-DVI are negligible on a product of the this price range. We need competition, but AMD keeps making the same mistakes, over and over.
there are quite a few potential buyers that need an analog solution capable of more than pedestrian 1920x1080@60Hz. And AMD ignores this by refusing to put a DVI-I port on the cards. there is no adapter to solve this issue for high end CRT owners.
there many buyers that could benefit from native HDMI 2.0. But AMD insists on keeping the ancient HDMI 1.4 port. this in turn keeps owners of 4k Tvs out of the AMD ecosystem for the time being as Fury X performance advantage is not worth the hassle and costs of looking for DP> HDMI 2.0 adapter.
I do understand that the costs of adding HDMI 2.0 and DL-DVI are negligible on a product of the this price range. We need competition, but AMD keeps making the same mistakes, over and over.
Are there really? What % of buyers do you suppose they are? 1%? Honestly.
In the era of $800 4K 40" monitors and the like, why are people still using 6 array displays?
Friends don't let friends ueber-bezel up their real-estate.
The only legit bitch IMO is the lack of HDMI 2.0, as that would let someone hook up to some 4K TV's that don't have DP.
Friends don't let friends ueber-bezel up their real-estate.
The only legit bitch IMO is the lack of HDMI 2.0, as that would let someone hook up to some 4K TV's that don't have DP.
Are you stating that less than 1% of Fury X buyers own 4k TVs, or are you implying that anyone buying Fury X today does not plan on getting one 4k TV in the lifetime of the video card?
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,944
Have to build a new rig due to moving. Would've been grabbing one of these, month and a bit after launch, (avoid e-tailer gouging), as have many times in the past with ATi/AMD, if they'd sorted their shit with the Fury. Instead they seem to have rushed it and fucked it up a little.
So I have to consider a gaddamn 980Ti vs Fury for 21:9, or see what CF 390X does either 21:9 or 4K on DP. Really don't want a dual card setup..
Do remember my Asus 6970 DC2 coming with a craptonne of full size display ports. Find the mini DP stuff a bit flimsy, to be honest.
Quite weird seeing the progression of ATi/AMD design. Personally would prefer a DVI for driving older 1080 TVs with existing cable, also testing or moving the PC elsewhere, not having to move the prized monitor etc.
Makes me Furyous!
So I have to consider a gaddamn 980Ti vs Fury for 21:9, or see what CF 390X does either 21:9 or 4K on DP. Really don't want a dual card setup..
Do remember my Asus 6970 DC2 coming with a craptonne of full size display ports. Find the mini DP stuff a bit flimsy, to be honest.
Quite weird seeing the progression of ATi/AMD design. Personally would prefer a DVI for driving older 1080 TVs with existing cable, also testing or moving the PC elsewhere, not having to move the prized monitor etc.
Makes me Furyous!
That's the wrong question: you should be asking, "What percentage of potential buyers of this card want HDMI 2.0?" Then you note that by not putting HDMI 2.0 on the card they lose 100% of those sales to Nvidia, which does support HDMI 2.0..
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 13,451
Did the fury really ship with HDMI 1.4? good god.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 756
I think AMD had to make decisions and being VESA got them their Freesync/Adaptivesync they chose to go hard with DP and not HDMI2.
Also just wondering from you guys with 4K does upscaling at a lower resolution look equal to 4K, like if you are using 1.4 so you set resolution to 1440p and use VSR/DSR to downscale 4K to that 1440p resolution how does it compare to actual 4K? I simply ask because on my 1080p using 1800p it looks far better than 1080p with AA. Actually it looks mind-blowingly well, to the point I am definitely considering 1440p and a larger monitor.
Also just wondering from you guys with 4K does upscaling at a lower resolution look equal to 4K, like if you are using 1.4 so you set resolution to 1440p and use VSR/DSR to downscale 4K to that 1440p resolution how does it compare to actual 4K? I simply ask because on my 1080p using 1800p it looks far better than 1080p with AA. Actually it looks mind-blowingly well, to the point I am definitely considering 1440p and a larger monitor.
6x 40" 4K displays would be neat for an advertising display.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,412
yes there might be potential buyers. but that's also like the movie industry trying to sue every person that downloads one of their movies and claims it's lost sales because that person was a "potential buyer".. the fact is the cost on their end doesn't compensate for the less than 1% more potential sales they might get because they include a free adapter(which costs them money and thus profit).
i remember the days when every company included one of those s-video adapters and DVI to VGA adapters.. i've probably thrown a couple dozen of them away at this point.. same thing goes for including an adapter that for the vast majority of people will never use. do i think the adapters that you can buy cost to much? sure, but that's also a cost that isn't being incurred on the people that have no use for it when buying the Fury X.
yeah it was a timing issue or so they claim, odds are they probably already had the PCB's and everything mapped out and assembled long before HDMI 2.0 was finalized and they were able to get a license for it(1.4a license doesn't continue on to HDMI 2.0, you have to get a completely new license just to use HDMI 2.0). one of the many reasons i wish companies would quit dealing with HDMI and start using DP as the standard display adapter.
Nope. I stated the overall market.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 13,236
At some point, sacrificing your business 1% at a time will catch up to you. Fury X is an enthusiast card. There are a fair number of enthusiasts with high speed CRTs, they sure don't want to upgrade or they'd done it by now, 4k HDMI 2.0 displays - which is a strong segment to buy 2 Fury X cards for the 4k horsepower, and Korean, single DVI-D 1440p displays that really don't need to be upgraded yet.
Out of the potential market for Fury X - I would argue the three categories above are more than 3%. And they scrap those potential customers, for what? To make the card smaller? The only group that needs such small form factor is the SFF/HTPC crowd, and no HDMI 2.0 wrecks that niche for most. Could they really have not been able to add a DVI-D connector? Or taken the time/spent the money to do HDMI 2.0 instead of HDMI 1.4? What was the point of even putting an HDMI 1.4 slot on a '4k card' to begin with? Would have made more sense to drop the HDMI port completely and keep DVI-D if they were not going to do 2.0
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 13,236
Yeah. AMD has a tremendous track record at understanding their markets. That really shows in their domination of the graphics card market and overwhelming positive reviews and reception of the Fury X, along with the exceptional line of Rebrandeon 3 series.
Oh, wait.
This is true however many wall street types would probably disagree. I have a multi monitor setup (6) at work. I don't know what kind of video card they run this off of though.
durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 756
And not every purchase is made on need or rational thought. And of that percent, of the 3 categories, what percent would ever buy an AMD over a Nvidia GPU. So it isn't like AMD threw all of those customers aside.