How much GPU to run 20-30-20 plus 1080p

T

TheArTcher

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
242
I'm plotting a core i5 build for a business workstation (no gaming) but don't know how much GPU I need. I'd like to use my 20-30-20 set while watching a 1080p video on the HDTV. It seems like most cards support only 3 monitors unless you go to one of the specialty cards. Also, I've read that using more than one card can introduce problems like artifacts etc.

Do any of you guys have experience with this kind of setup? I thought that a pair of HD7750 cards might do the job, or just go with one HD7770 / GT650 and give up one of the 20" monitors. Are 2 card setups problematic? Do I need a HD7850 to get snappy performance?

Apps are Photoshop, Premiere Pro, and Solidworks (low complexity).

TIA,
Artcher
 
You're probably dead-set on an i5, but I'm going to just weigh in with this: If you run something with integrated AMD graphics, on any of their motherboards as far back as the 480-chipset, there is an option called SurroundView which lets you leverage the IGP's video output (in conjunction with an AMD discrete GPU). So if you bought a cheap video card like an HD7450 then you'd be able to run 4 displays, but it would not be Hybrid CrossFire, they would be independent. The only caveat is that you are stuck with using the Motherboard's VGA (D-Sub) connection, as the HDMI and DVI are linked ports and unable to be utilized simultaneously.

What you're wanting to do isn't sounding graphics intensive in anyway, so you wouldn't need anything as powerful as you're suggesting, though the more the merrier for at least Photoshop since it is OpenCL accellerated (for certain with AMD graphics, not entirely sure on if Cuda is still supported, and if Intel is at all). Which is why I suggested just a cheap HD7450. If you are dead set on the Core i5, then I would honestly just grab two identical graphics cards and completely forgo using the Intel HD Graphics entirely to minimize potential problems. Granted, with Windows 7 (and probably 8), multiple graphics isn't really a problem anymore, definitely not like Windows XP was. So I'm not sure about the artifacts claim. However, if any of your monitor's support DisplayPort, you can get away with a single card powering 4 screens like this Sapphire FLeX HD 7770 or power the three monitors with this FLeX HD 6450 and leave the Intel GPU to just watch the movies on your TV with.

That's my 2C, hope it helps some.
 
Formula.350 said:
You're probably dead-set on an i5, but I'm going to just weigh in with this: If you run something with integrated AMD graphics, on any of their motherboards as far back as the 480-chipset, there is an option called SurroundView which lets you leverage the IGP's video output (in conjunction with an AMD discrete GPU). So if you bought a cheap video card like an HD7450 then you'd be able to run 4 displays, but it would not be Hybrid CrossFire, they would be independent. The only caveat is that you are stuck with using the Motherboard's VGA (D-Sub) connection, as the HDMI and DVI are linked ports and unable to be utilized simultaneously.

What you're wanting to do isn't sounding graphics intensive in anyway, so you wouldn't need anything as powerful as you're suggesting, though the more the merrier for at least Photoshop since it is OpenCL accellerated (for certain with AMD graphics, not entirely sure on if Cuda is still supported, and if Intel is at all). Which is why I suggested just a cheap HD7450. If you are dead set on the Core i5, then I would honestly just grab two identical graphics cards and completely forgo using the Intel HD Graphics entirely to minimize potential problems. Granted, with Windows 7 (and probably 8), multiple graphics isn't really a problem anymore, definitely not like Windows XP was. So I'm not sure about the artifacts claim. However, if any of your monitor's support DisplayPort, you can get away with a single card powering 4 screens like this Sapphire FLeX HD 7770 or power the three monitors with this FLeX HD 6450 and leave the Intel GPU to just watch the movies on your TV with.

That's my 2C, hope it helps some.
Click to expand...

Formula, thanks for the reply. I did look at the AMD FX and A series chips. When I compared the i5 to the A10, the performance difference was about 40% for a cost difference of about $100. That's $100 difference in total system cost, not a huge deal considering you get a much faster CPU. Like you said, I probably don't need that extra speed for the applications I currently use, but it doesn't hurt to have a little reserve performance.

The A10 would be a major bargain if the on-chip graphics was adequate but the i5 on-chip graphics was not. I've read that the A10 graphics performance is about double the intel 4000 graphics. Does that matter in 2D operation? I don't know of any way to determine what will be adequate without building and testing a system.

That Sapphire card is exactly what I was looking for. There is a HIS 7850 card on Newegg that also does 4 monitors, but for more money.

So the bottom line question is: will the 2D performance of the on-chip graphics of the i5 or A10 be about as fast as a much more powerful graphics card such as the HD7850 when driving three monitors at 1200x1600, 2560x1600, 1920x1080?
 
Are you watching live programming on the HDTV or video stored on a DVR or PC?
 
deadlift1 said:
Are you watching live programming on the HDTV or video stored on a DVR or PC?
Click to expand...

It's for editing HD videos on the hard drive. Sometimes I use my current system to record live TV but I really don't need that capability on the new system.
 
Im not much experienced with this but my guess is that you should really use the cpu integrated gpu for one of the screens. Both intel and amd have both good enough gpus for hd movies and such.. Then u can basically get whatever other gpu to power the two other screens. again someone else should probably confirm this.
 
TheArTcher said:
Formula, thanks for the reply. I did look at the AMD FX and A series chips. When I compared the i5 to the A10, the performance difference was about 40% for a cost difference of about $100. That's $100 difference in total system cost, not a huge deal considering you get a much faster CPU. Like you said, I probably don't need that extra speed for the applications I currently use, but it doesn't hurt to have a little reserve performance.

The A10 would be a major bargain if the on-chip graphics was adequate but the i5 on-chip graphics was not. I've read that the A10 graphics performance is about double the intel 4000 graphics. Does that matter in 2D operation? I don't know of any way to determine what will be adequate without building and testing a system.

That Sapphire card is exactly what I was looking for. There is a HIS 7850 card on Newegg that also does 4 monitors, but for more money.

So the bottom line question is: will the 2D performance of the on-chip graphics of the i5 or A10 be about as fast as a much more powerful graphics card such as the HD7850 when driving three monitors at 1200x1600, 2560x1600, 1920x1080?
Click to expand...


Well here's something to think about. I have an Phenom II X6 1090T and an 890FX mobo, as well as an A8-3850 (first gen APU quad core) and A75 mobo (both systems I used my dual HD 5770s in CrossFire with). I shelved the 1090T combo lol I have far more fun with the APU and it has a far greater memory performance which is of more help for me with the games I play which see no benefit to the extra 2 cores, L3 cache or 600MHz faster clock (since I can OC the A8 to that anyways). The thermals on this A8 are much better, as is the power management, not to mention I have the IGP if I ever decided to use it for Compute and the like. Now, the A10 with Trinity overall is a better chip than my A8 so if I had one I'd still not bring my 1090T out of retirement, and I do use Photoshop myself but not professionally.

As for the A10's on-die graphics, it is more than adequate! My A8's surprised the hell out of me, as I didn't expect it to do near what it ended up being capable of (I'm talking gaming here). So for running 2D you really won't notice a difference between the two... however, with Adobe supporting the APUs for computational power in Photoshop (and maybe your other programs, but I'm not familiar with their Computer/OpenCL hardware support capabilities) you will be better off with the AMD system. Additionally, you mentioned doing video editing, and depending on what software is used I know quite a few of them now offload the encoding work onto the GPUs, thus making for another win for the APU. Video playback is another thing that typically leverage GPUs, but Intel's HD cores might be supported by those players these days so I can't really comment on that.

Though I will admit, since I don't edit videos I am not exactly sure how things even out between AMD and Intel on the whole, with having CPU+GPU on AMD chips vs just Intel's superior CPU performance. In terms of just encoding though, the GPU alone wins that task. If the i5 you are getting has HyperThreading, and the software you use can take advantage of 8 threads, then that could very well offset things in Intel's favor. I simply don't know enough about that aspect to make even a guesstimation heh

To answer the multi-monitor question on a single card, that won't be a problem. These days you're able to play modern games across three screens on a single graphics card (albeit the top of the line ones, which are faster than a 7850), so multitasking 2D content isn't really a chore.

If you get a discrete graphics card that can handle all four screens like that 7770 or 7850 (I believe PowerColor, MSI and VisionTek also offer a similarly capable card/s), you can get the i5 without fear of losing the benefits of running the AMD GPU, since you still will be. If you plan on getting a discrete graphics card to supplement your on-die graphics, then I personally would go with AMD, if for any reason other than the GPU power, then for the fact that you will have one driver doing display work instead of two.
 
Formula.350 said:
Well here's something to think about. I have an Phenom II X6 1090T and an 890FX mobo, as well as an A8-3850 (first gen APU quad core) and A75 mobo (both systems I used my dual HD 5770s in CrossFire with). I shelved the 1090T combo lol I have far more fun with the APU and it has a far greater memory performance which is of more help for me with the games I play which see no benefit to the extra 2 cores, L3 cache or 600MHz faster clock (since I can OC the A8 to that anyways). The thermals on this A8 are much better, as is the power management, not to mention I have the IGP if I ever decided to use it for Compute and the like. Now, the A10 with Trinity overall is a better chip than my A8 so if I had one I'd still not bring my 1090T out of retirement, and I do use Photoshop myself but not professionally.

As for the A10's on-die graphics, it is more than adequate! My A8's surprised the hell out of me, as I didn't expect it to do near what it ended up being capable of (I'm talking gaming here). So for running 2D you really won't notice a difference between the two... however, with Adobe supporting the APUs for computational power in Photoshop (and maybe your other programs, but I'm not familiar with their Computer/OpenCL hardware support capabilities) you will be better off with the AMD system. Additionally, you mentioned doing video editing, and depending on what software is used I know quite a few of them now offload the encoding work onto the GPUs, thus making for another win for the APU. Video playback is another thing that typically leverage GPUs, but Intel's HD cores might be supported by those players these days so I can't really comment on that.

Though I will admit, since I don't edit videos I am not exactly sure how things even out between AMD and Intel on the whole, with having CPU+GPU on AMD chips vs just Intel's superior CPU performance. In terms of just encoding though, the GPU alone wins that task. If the i5 you are getting has HyperThreading, and the software you use can take advantage of 8 threads, then that could very well offset things in Intel's favor. I simply don't know enough about that aspect to make even a guesstimation heh

To answer the multi-monitor question on a single card, that won't be a problem. These days you're able to play modern games across three screens on a single graphics card (albeit the top of the line ones, which are faster than a 7850), so multitasking 2D content isn't really a chore.

If you get a discrete graphics card that can handle all four screens like that 7770 or 7850 (I believe PowerColor, MSI and VisionTek also offer a similarly capable card/s), you can get the i5 without fear of losing the benefits of running the AMD GPU, since you still will be. If you plan on getting a discrete graphics card to supplement your on-die graphics, then I personally would go with AMD, if for any reason other than the GPU power, then for the fact that you will have one driver doing display work instead of two.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks again Formula. You sold me on the A10. I can live with 2 monitors plus HDTV.

Artcher
 
TheArTcher said:
Well, thanks again Formula. You sold me on the A10. I can live with 2 monitors plus HDTV.

Artcher
Click to expand...

No problem, I hope it works out well for you. :)

Since you are going to go that route, I highly recommend getting RAM that is 1866 (since it is natively supported, no overclocking) and at least an 8GB kit (or however much more, if you need it). The only reason for more memory is then you can dedicate more to the GPU in the BIOS, which will help with anything Compute or OpenCL driven (like Photoshop with CS6). I don't know if they upped the limit to 2GB with the Socket FM2 systems but it was limited to 1GB on FM1. Eitherway, that would then leave you with 6 or 7GB of system memory that Windows will have access too, hence suggesting 8GB, and that old parasitic loss of memory performance from integrated graphics isn't there like it was back in the day.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions and I'll help where ever I can!

EDIT: The NDA lifts tomorrow on the notebook "Richland", which I sat in on last week's phone conference, and whenever they release a desktop model then it will be a drop-in replacement in your FM2 board. Comes with some nice bonus software/features as well.
http://hardocp.com/news/2013/03/12/amd_launches_elite_aseries_apus_codenamed_richland
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top