Review Index:
Feedback

Frame Rating: Eyefinity vs Surround in Single and Multi-GPU Configurations

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: Various

Discovered Problems with Eyefinity

Hopefully you followed (or just read) our previous Frame Rating stories and learned about the problems that AMD CrossFire had with runt frames and artificial performance results.  As it turns out though in a CrossFire + Eyefinity system, the issues are very different and likely not as simple to fix.  I found three individual concerns when running our AMD Radeon HD 7970s in CrossFire at 5760x1080: dropped frames, frame interleaving and stepped tearing. 

 

Dropped Frames

This is the easiest problem to understand and demonstrate.  With our overlay that is applied to game frames as they leave the game engine, but before the graphics system takes hold of them, we are not only to accurately measure performance on the screen but discover missing frames.  This is possible simply because we know the expected pattern of colors and can easily detect when one of them is missing. 

Our test pattern follows a sequence of white, lime, blue, red, teal, navy, green, aqua, maroon, silver, purple, olive, grey, fuchsia, yellow, and orange.  These colors then loop and we can use the scan line length of them to measure frame rates very accurately.  But if a color is missing in the order, say white then blue, we know that lime was missing and completely dropped from user’s point of view.

View Full Size

Thanks to The Tech Report for the tiled screenshot idea!

These successive captured frames from Bioshock Infinite skip the lime, red, navy, aqua and silver colors indicated that every other frame in this sequence that is being rendered by the game is NOT being displayed.  With single display testing we would see RUNT frames in those places but it appears that with Eyefinity the problem is worse and those frames that the game engine submits are never displayed.

Why is this important?  Tools like FRAPS that measure performance at the same point as our overlay is applied are essentially DOUBLING the frame rate in this instance, giving unfair and unrepresentative results.  In our Observed FPS metrics those missing frames are accounted for correctly with lower frame rates.

 

Interleaved Frames

Dropped frames were easy to understand but we are about to get more complicated with our discussion.  Look at this:

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

What you are seeing is one frame being displayed at the same time as another, interwoven together.  This new problem is being dubbed “interleaved frames” and is unique to Eyefinity.  I have witnessed this happening in every game we have tested though the games do shift between dropping frames completely and interleaving them together in this way. 

This problem not only causes lower perceived frame rates but also can cause some visual anomalies.

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

This image from Skyrim shows the problem at work once again and if you look at the vertical lines of the structure you can clearly see the result of an interleaved frame: portions of the image alternate between positions back and forth rather than once with typical Vsync tearing.

After seeing this specific issue I spent a lot of time making sure it was not caused by or influenced by the overlay itself.  To double check we captured the output of the screens without the overlay enabled and through simple frame grabs we found interleaving continued. 

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

This animated image shows (in a very slow motion fashion) how the frame interleaving is seen in gameplay. 

http://i.imgur.com/9IJ1MVS.gif

For a full resolution of the above image, click here. (5MB)

 

Stepped Tearing

As it turns out, the interleaved frames also result in another visual anomaly we are calling stepped tearing.  Take a look at the image below:

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

Not only are there intermixed frames in this screenshot but the horizontal tears are NOT level, instead they appear to grow or shrink.  As a result, and combined with the interleaving, these tears are more noticeable to the end user than the standard vertical sync tears and also are affecting observed frame rates.

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

Look at this same Skyrim screenshot from above.  Notice on the left hand side you’ll see there are clearly five different frames slices (looking at the left side wood strut).  But the color bars on the overlay on the far left hand side only see three frames.  The first “slice” of that wooden support doesn’t start until somewhere in the middle of the mountain range area in the background. 

 

I was also fearful that perhaps our capture equipment was responsible for the errors and problems seen in these screen grabs and recordings.  To enforce the problem I picked up a camera that could record 120 FPS at 1280x720 resolution and recorded the Eyefinity configuration.  In this image below you can obviously still see the frame interleaving as well as the stepped tears.

View Full Size

Click to Enlarge

Clearly this problem is real and isn’t a result of our testing methods.  It was just nearly impossible to find before the creation of this overlay and the testing methodologies at work here. 

 

We have developed a working theory of what is happening and why we are seeing these interleaving and stepped pattern issues.  When running in a multi-GPU configuration of any kind the contents of the buffer from each of the secondary GPUs must be copied back to the primary card that has the display physically connected to it.  That card’s frame output buffer is then scanned out to the displays.

I believe that interleaving is caused by incomplete frame buffer copies from the secondary GPU to the primary GPU.  If the copy is slow or stalls at any point, the current scan out process (being drawn at the screen at that specific moment) starts to re-read the primary GPU’s frame buffer rather than the secondary GPU’s as it simply didn’t make it in time.  When you see a back and forth pattern of frame interleaving it indicates that the copy is actually “catching up” a bit but then falling behind yet again.  This may happen a few times before a third frame (from the primary GPU) is ready and is pushed to the buffer easily.

This is likely also the reason that we see dropped frames – the copy of data from the second GPU to the primary is slow enough that the next frame from the primary GPU is ready before a copy takes place.

It is also possible that the interleaving is an issue of synchronization and not bandwidth, but without more data and information from AMD it is hard to tell as an outside observer.

I do want to note before anyone comments ask this question: no enabling Vsync in the game or the control panel does NOT fix or change these problems.

The stepped tearing issue is caused by a different but related property – AMD does not appear to have a synchronization step on each scan line but instead on each pixel.  Rather than wait for each scan line to output before updating the frame buffer AMD allows the buffer to update at any point which would cause the variable height frame results we are showing you above.

I asked AMD for more information on why or how this is happening but they decided not to comment at this time.  When I approached NVIDIA they said only that they have enabled “locks and syncs” for their frame copies and scan line outputs on SLI.

UPDATE: We did finally get some feedback from AMD on the subject after quite a bit of back and forth.  Essentially, AMD claims the problems we are seeing are due only to synchronization issues and NOT from bandwidth limitations.  Since the file copies are done over the PCIe bus, only an instance of near 100% utilization on it would cause degradation – and the only instances of that would be from heavy system memory access.  However, if you are accessing main system memory with the GPUs in your PC then other performance bottlenecks are going to creep up before CrossFire scaling.

If that is the case then AMD should be able to fix the CrossFire + Eyefinity issues in the coming weeks or months.  A bandwidth issue would be much harder to deal with and could mean a fix would have never arrived for HD 7000-series users.


September 17, 2013 | 07:22 PM - Posted by Alien0227

PcPer.com, I am one of those "that are invested in the HD 7000-series of graphics cards and have already purchased their Eyefinity configurations on the promise of a great experience".

I thank you for your hard work PcPer! I am truly grateful!

Because of it so far, I have seen a dramatic improvement in single screen Xfire game play with my 2 HD 7870s.

I did however invest in triple 1920 x 1080p screens, 2 HD 7870s and I wish I could be rewarded with the performance expectations I paid for. The experience would be awesome.

I only hope AMD will strive to keep me as a loyal customer by listening to your findings and offer a solution shortly to this Eyefinity-CrossFire problem.

You and AMD will have my undying loyalty and gratitude for it.

If AMD does, it will surely make them the king of the hill in value, for dollar per dollar performance...

Are you listening AMD? Is this make or break time for your company? My next GPU purchase depends on how you react. I wish AMD great success!

p.s. Ryan and PcPer.com Team. Please be confident that you are doing a great service to AMD in the long run and their customers.

Marc Senecal
Fort Myers, FL

September 17, 2013 | 09:42 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Marc, thank you very much for your comments and feedback.  We greatly appreciate the support!

September 18, 2013 | 04:10 AM - Posted by j (not verified)

I'm sorry but I have to correct you: gaming equipment is not an INVESTMENT. Unless you're a pro gamer is a consumer spending.

Anyway, I wish you all the best fun with your new hardware :)

September 18, 2013 | 10:21 AM - Posted by Aranyszin (not verified)

This is no place for a grammar Nazi, and you aren't even correct in the first place.

Yes, the word "investment" is often associated with money spent expecting a monetary return. However, that is not the only usage of the word.

The poster clearly is "invested" considering the amount of money he spent, which he spent anticipating a return - in this case, a return in performance.

Honestly, contribute something useful to the topic or stay quiet. This thread is about obtaining a correction to a product flaw, not "How to parse nomenclature".

September 18, 2013 | 10:03 PM - Posted by Roy Taylor (not verified)

Dear Marc, yes we are definitely listening. Drop me a line direct.

best regards
Roy

January 28, 2014 | 08:20 AM - Posted by Roy Taylor (not verified)

hi Marc, I can assure you that myself and several other senior executives and engineers at AMD are deeply committed to making sure you get the experience you deserve.

We believe that Ryan treats this subject fairly, reports accurately and he works closely with us. We are grateful of his recognition of our leadership where we have it, even if I dont personally agree about our competitors 'sexyness'!

We will back with more on this shortly,
thanks

September 17, 2013 | 09:33 PM - Posted by Jonny (not verified)

hello
there is 13.10 beta did u test it?

September 17, 2013 | 09:42 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Nope, we were using 13.8 beta.  But 13.10 did not add any changes for Eyefinity / Frame Pacing.

September 18, 2013 | 01:43 PM - Posted by Jonny (not verified)

i got 7950 X2
I had a chance to buy another one at $ 100

Now I'm all out of it and save the next generation of NVIDIA ...
I'm very disappointed that AMD are selling a defective product ..

Thanks for the information.

September 18, 2013 | 04:44 PM - Posted by NvidiaPWNS (not verified)

AMD is always all about selling defective and inferior products. They did it before with their "Tri core" CPUs. Those were just Quad cores that had a 4th core that they couldn't get to work. AMD GPUs and drivers are shit. You get what you pay for.

September 19, 2013 | 06:05 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You do realize that binning is a key part in the silicon-industry? By your logic, the Titan is crap because it only has 14 of the GK110's 15 SMX units activated.
When a produc-line is announced, there are actually few different dies being produced. 3820, 3930, 60 and 70 are all 8-core "xeons" with cores disabled due yield issues.
EVERYONE do this.

And please, stop spreading the false claim that the drivers are bad. Maybe they were back in good ol' '04, but that is long gone. AMD has actually had better drivers than Nvidia this generation...

September 21, 2013 | 11:13 AM - Posted by NvidiaPWNS (not verified)

In your dreams retard! NVIDIA PWNS YOUR AMD, NUB!

September 18, 2013 | 05:22 PM - Posted by mAxius

Are you sure http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst13-10WINBetaDriver...

I'm still wondering about this little gem... "PCI-E bus speed is no longer set to x1 on the secondary GPU when running in CrossFire configurations"

September 19, 2013 | 12:24 AM - Posted by JJ (not verified)

"But 13.10 did not add any changes for Eyefinity / Frame Pacing." - I am curious about this too, as the press release clearly states that it updated something regarding Eyefinity.

September 19, 2013 | 12:50 AM - Posted by JJ (not verified)

I'm fairly technical, but I am getting a little outside my level of knowledge here

1. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2010/11/27/pci-express-3-0-explained/
Each lane of PCIe 3.0 only has 1 GB/sec

2. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci-express-scaling-analysis,1572-8....
This is a very old article, but THG did testing graphics cards by limiting the PCIe lanes available to graphics cards, and you can see a very large performance degradation.

3. Back to the "PCI-E bus speed is no longer set to x1 on the secondary GPU when running in CrossFire configurations" Note in the press release.

Would one of the cards in the setup being starved for bandwidth be able to account for these anomalies?

September 19, 2013 | 01:35 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

By AMD's admission, no. This problem listed in the Catalyst 13.10 notes only affects Crossfire configurations that do not use a bridge adapter across the graphics cards. This coming from AMD's own Andrew Dodd.

If this were a fix for our problems AMD would surely be crowing about it.

September 17, 2013 | 10:53 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

You guys rock pcper. Been here for years. Love amd, but they need to get their act together. Emphasis on the good faith part ya know. Don't become the crappy option. Amd has so much great iP if they could only get their software side together they would be SIGNIFCANTLY more competitive.

September 17, 2013 | 11:05 PM - Posted by Nacelle

I hope this fix AMD says they are working on will help with my 6970's too. I know they aren't worth that now, but I paid $700 for the pair, a couple years ago, to power my 3 screens. I'm about to sell them on craigslist and get an nvidia card, if it doesn't.

September 18, 2013 | 12:10 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I honestly don't know if they will fix it, but the 13.8 beta did fix single screen for 6000-series parts so you might get lucky here too.

September 17, 2013 | 11:10 PM - Posted by Paul Keeble (not verified)

Keep hitting them until they fix this. I bought 2x 7970's in January 2012 and I noticed immediately the problem. Its not like AMD has only known about this since the beginning of this year, thousands of users were reporting this problem a year before that. It really put me off dual cards until I got a pair of 680's and found that the grass was much greener on the Nvidia side with SLI.

We need this fixed so we have some competition in the high end of GPUs.

September 18, 2013 | 08:40 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ryan...let us see your Tiger-Bus !

September 18, 2013 | 12:13 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

How about this?  http://screencast.com/t/uTeQAykAYhJF

:D

September 18, 2013 | 09:51 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

with any luck a fix will be out from AMD a few after the release of the 9000 series, they are so slow with driver updates that I'd see it taking that long ... if they dont just give up ...

September 18, 2013 | 09:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

a few *months* after

January 17, 2015 | 07:33 AM - Posted by Merlin (not verified)

Many of the homebuyers tend to miscalculate the amount of money they borrow, most of the time, overestimating
them, because they think that their income will increase after several years and
that will make the mortgage payment be more comfortable
for them as the time goes by. Qualified properties are identified on the Help-U-Sell website, . Each house loan program will have its own individual set of rules. The upsells are also far cheaper than the actual cost of the phone. One of the nice things about the Federal Housing Administration loan, the FHA loan, thats the first time home buyer type loan, the minimum down payment loan, its only 3 years after you have had a foreclosure that you can qualify to purchase a home again. To begin with, they grant flexible finance guidelines which permit buyers having low credit history to get approved.

Here is my website ... como perder barriga rapido

September 18, 2013 | 10:23 AM - Posted by NLPsajeeth

So you can't run 3 PQ321's on AMD in a 6x1 eyefinity configuration?

I'm glad to see AMD is putting focus on 4K and hope they have a 4K eyefinity solution soon.

The only way NVIDIA will ever support anything other than 3x1 surround is if AMD turns up the heat. NVIDIA if you are listening, you need 2x1 and 2x2 surround support at any resolution to stay competitive on the consumer side. No one is dropping thousands of dollars on Quadro's just to get that one feature.

September 18, 2013 | 12:15 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I think technically YES you can support 3 4K monitors like the ASUS PQ321Q with AMD today...but the main issue is going to be PERFORMANCE.  Even without frame pacing and interleaving problems how much horsepower would you need for that?

More than they have available today.

September 18, 2013 | 02:50 PM - Posted by NLPsajeeth

Just wanted to make sure it was a performance issue not a driver issue. I agree you wouldn't be able to run anything more than simple 3D demos in such a setup.

Agreed, I really hope we will see large GPU performance increases with the next round of silicon so that multi 4K gaming becomes a reality.

Keep up the good work, you guys are really pushing the boundaries of what is possible with 4K!

September 18, 2013 | 10:30 AM - Posted by gamerk2 (not verified)

I can't help but wonder, if the issues seen really are due to lack of proper synchronization, then would there be a FPS impact when AMD makes their changes?

Or in other words: Is AMD cheating on performance (knowingly or not)?

September 18, 2013 | 12:16 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I don't think they were doing it knowingly, no.  That doesn't excuse them though; they should have been able to see these problems before and been trying to fix them before this all started to happen this year.

September 18, 2013 | 12:05 PM - Posted by fhmuffman (not verified)

Hi Ryan, I hope 4K connectivity is scheduled to be included in all future reviews of hardware, like laptop reviews. Back in June I needed to buy something quick when my system crashed and it would have been great to know if any low to mid range laptops could at least drive a 4K display. I am not expecting benchmarks of a Chromebook running Metro Last Light at 4K but it would be nice to know if I could display Sheets on a Seiki display with an A10 based laptop.

September 18, 2013 | 12:18 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The SEIKI's should be supported with just about any modern GPU (single head, 30 Hz) but it's the 60 Hz models that require some more testing.  I'll try my best to include them going forward!

September 18, 2013 | 02:09 PM - Posted by Batman (not verified)

Thanks Ryan & PcPer for doing this & the previous investigative work; it is much appreciated & good to see AMD taking the findings onboard to make fixes!

September 18, 2013 | 08:25 PM - Posted by Pete (not verified)

If you used a monitor that was capable of 600fps would the problem persist?

September 18, 2013 | 09:31 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Yes, the supported refresh rate is irrelevant here.

September 18, 2013 | 08:42 PM - Posted by Serpent of Darkness (not verified)

@ Ryan Shrout,

1. You need to state if your using AMD Beta Driver 13.8A (8-1-2013), or AMD Beta Driver 13.8B(8-19-2013). If you're using 13.8A on purpose during a discussion/benchmark on Surround and 1600p, multiple viewers could come to the conclusion you did this on purpose to make AMD look bad. AMD Beta Driver 13.8A doesn't have 1600p support. It only addresses the issues for DX11 API. 13.8B addresses 1600p and surround, if I am not mistaken. A possible upcoming 13.8C may address DX9 API, or it could have already been done in the new 13.9 WHQL update.

2. Personally, I can't take your discussions on a more serious manner. In your conclusions, you state things that give me the impression that you don't fully understand graphs, or have poor views of AMD Graphic Cards. At the very least, it is leading me to believe that you are bias towards Nvidia. Having favoritism, or a bias point of view to one company over the other, isn't a good way to approach a discussion or benchmark on any product. It doesn't help you seem serious, experienced, or reasonable to both bases (AMD and Nvidia users). It only tells readers that you pander to one side, and talk crap about the other brand's short-comings. AnAndtech doesn't do it, Guru3D doesn't do it, techpowerup.com doesn't do it either, and they all come out with really good benchmarks about computer-based products. Both bases read their benchmarks because they aren't bias. Mr Shrout, you are bias either because you are letting people know of your hatred towards AMD, or you want to cater discussions and benchmarks that make AMD look bad to the Nvidia Base. Those are reasonable conclusions. If I don't see a benchmark on here discussing why the GTX 600, 700 and Titan series doesn't fully support DX11.1(support only software, but not hardware-wise), you are only going to prove me right.

3. Looking at the Frametime Variance Graphs that you posted, AMD 7970 will have a lower minimum band because the cards push lower latency to produce batches of frames. Problem with it, and it's true, is somewhere along the way, they will produce "runt frames." Frames that aren't one whole frame. It could be like 0.8 frames, or 0.9, or 0.7. On the other hand, it takes less time for AMD video cards to produce those batches of frames. Nvidia takes longer to produce the batch because, hardware wise, the system probably calculates whether it needs to spend more time producing an extra "whole" frame. That's why their minimum frame time band is higher than AMD. The hardware is always trying to push 1.0 frames times x amount of frames to a batch.

September 18, 2013 | 09:30 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

1. You are incorrect in this assumption.  No beta or full release of driver from AMD addresses Eyefinity.

2. I don't understand the relevance to DX11.1 reference here honestly.  This story isn't about API support but rather multi-display + multi-GPU gaming.  As to the bias question, this is something that gets targeted at people all the time when their results clearly show an advantage to one side or another.  Throughout our Frame Rating series of stories I have continued to tell the truth - that AMD cards are fantastic for single GPU configurations but need work on the multi-GPU side.  You can have your opinion obviously, but obviously we disagree.  As do many of the readers commenting here.

3. Sorry, I'm going to need more explanation on what you are saying here.  Frames are not produced in "batches" at all.  I think you are trying to describe the runt frame problem maybe?

September 18, 2013 | 09:59 PM - Posted by Allyn Malventano

2. Personally, I can't take your comment on a more serious manner. In your post, you state things that give me the impression that you don't fully understand reviews, or have poor views of NVidia graphics cards. At the very least, it is leading me to believe that you are bias towards AMD. Having favoritism, or a bias point of view to one company over the other, isn't a good way to approach a discussion or benchmark on any product.

Sucks how that works, doesn't it? Oh, for your point 3, it doesn't matter how fast a card can batch process *anything*, so long as what's presented to the user is inferior to the competition. The result is all that matters. Rolling back to point 1, your statements are moot as they are made without the far greater level of knowledge Ryan has - as he speaks with AMD about these various beta versions on an almost daily basis.

September 19, 2013 | 03:16 AM - Posted by technogiant (not verified)

As AMD have just stated that their Hawaii gpu's are smaller and more efficient but not intended to compete with the "ultra extreme" gpu's of Nvidia (aka 780/titan)as this is something that will be addressed by AMD's multi gpu cards....then it is all the more essential that AMD sorts these problems out properly and completely otherwise their product/business model is flawed as badly as their multi gpu performance.

September 19, 2013 | 03:24 AM - Posted by technogiant (not verified)

On a slightly different note but still regarding multi gpu I'd be interested in the views of you pcper guru's on the present state of multi gpu systems.

It's always seemed like such a waste to me using alternate frame rendering on multi gpu cards where each gpu has to have access to its own complete frame buffer size of memory.

Surely it would be better to use a tiled render approach where each gpu is working on individual tiles of the same frame and sharing one frame buffer sized chunk of memory?

September 26, 2013 | 05:20 AM - Posted by kn00tcn

someone always brings this up, & both ati & nv have said for years that AFR brings the most performance in the least complex way (unless a game engine has inter frame dependancies)

in the past, ati had tiled CF as an option, also scissor mode

but think about this, let's say you're doing 2 tiles at a horizontal split, you may end up with one card rendering an empty sky, the second rendering a ton of detail, basically resulting in a useless solution that doesnt scale

on top of that, you have to synchronize the tiles to display a final image at the same time, but the cards cant physically render at the exact same time, so you'll introduce lag or artifacts (which eyefinity does see)

i would say AFR is good enough & the way to go for multiple cards, but i would want to see a new paradigm... do you remember the first core2quad? it was 2 duals stitched together, imagine if 2 gpus were stitched together (no more mirroring the vram, just adjust the socket connections)

September 19, 2013 | 03:31 AM - Posted by Nvidia Shill (not verified)

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/9/18/nvidia-launches-amd-has-i...

September 19, 2013 | 09:13 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

LOL.  Some stories are funny, you know?

I replied to this here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1427828/bsn-nvidia-launches-amd-has-issues-marketing-offensive-ahead-of-hawaii-launch/30#post_20827758

September 19, 2013 | 08:43 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I don't even understand the point of this article.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7195/amd-frame-pacing-explorer-cat138/3

Even before that article it was known Amd was going to fix it phases.

September 19, 2013 | 09:15 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The point to showcase the very specific Eyefinity problems compared to Surround as they had not been discussed or shown in any form before today. 

September 19, 2013 | 11:18 AM - Posted by JJ White

Will you be taking a look at the Phanteks Enthoo Primo case? According to Hardware Canucks it might be the "Case of the year", not bad for such a small company entering the case market. I would be interested in what you think about it.

Here's the link to the HwC video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg_DzdHGgN4

September 19, 2013 | 03:47 PM - Posted by BIGGRIMTIM

How are your displays connected? I was having this issue until I connected all of my displays via DisplayPort. I know this is not ideal but it has eliminated the issue for me. I have 2 HD 7970s in crossfire and 3 Dell U2410 displays.

September 19, 2013 | 04:48 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If the Asus PQ321 supports DisplayPort 1.2 and the HD 7970 supports DP 1.2 as well, and DP 1.2 can do 4k at 60Hz, then why is 4K necessarily a "dual head" affair? Is that simply due to the way the Asus was designed?

September 19, 2013 | 05:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ok. Nevermind. The whole tiled display thing. Is there a particular reason why 4k displays have to be tiled (or multi-headed)?

September 19, 2013 | 05:02 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ok. Nevermind. The whole tiled display thing. Is there a particular reason why 4k displays have to be tiled (or multi-headed)?

September 19, 2013 | 05:05 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Ok. Nevermind. The whole tiled display thing.

From another comment on this site by NLPsajeeth:

"Currently there are no timing controllers that support 4K@60p. In order to drive the asus/sharp at 4K@60p, two separate TCONs are used. This is why this monitor has the unique capability of supporting dual HDMI. Each HDMI port feeds into its own TCON.

There is no 4K display that can do 60Hz without tiling. 4K@60p TCONs are supposed to start shipping in small amounts this year and in mass quantities in 2014."

September 19, 2013 | 07:22 PM - Posted by coffeefoot

Keep the faith, Ryan and co. Just continue to call it like you see it and let the chips fall where they may.
Hopefully AMD will get its stuff together otherwise they are going to lose a few folks.

September 19, 2013 | 09:42 PM - Posted by ArcRendition

I sincerely admire your journalistic integrity Ryan... as well everyone else at the PCper team!

-Stewart Graham

September 20, 2013 | 02:19 PM - Posted by ezjohny

what a difference in AMD graft, they improved on there driver.
Is this so with an APU + Graphic card. Good job Ryan.

September 20, 2013 | 09:42 PM - Posted by BigDaddyCF

Well currently rolling with 2x7970's on a 1920x1200 triple display setup. Can't say I ever really been personally bothered the various issues raised in the article in regards to the frame interlieaving and stepped tearing enough to stop playing, though I trust the guys over at PCPer to give it to me straight. I noticed the stuttering with crossfire more than anything else you guys brought up with your new testing methodology. I think most of us gamers at least gained a better understanding about the various issues involved. Sometimes my benchmarking applcation(be it FRAPS or Dxtory) would say I was getting a certain frame amount but the game just felt too jittery, whereas if I disabled crossfire the game felt more smooth even with a lower framerate.

That is not to say I haven't thoroughly enjoyed my 7970's/Eyefinity setup. When I've been been able to play at Eyefinity resolutions I've done so, when I haven't I've just adjusted my quality or resolution settings until I could get a smooth enough playing experience.

Do I hope that AMD is able to smooth out those circumstances where I can't play at a give resolution/quality due to micro-stuttering with crossfire, yeah that would be awesome. I think a lot of us out here still don't have a full appreciation for the phenomena due to not having been able to test multi-GPU solutions side by side, so it just comes down to "the game doesn't feel fluid enough at my current settings so I'll dial them down until it does", which I'm sure people have different sensitivities to. Keep up the good work PCPer crew.

September 21, 2013 | 09:11 PM - Posted by tbone8ty (not verified)

what about this ryan?

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/9/18/nvidia-launches-amd-has-i...

September 22, 2013 | 06:07 AM - Posted by Davros (not verified)

why use 2 hdmi cables when you can use a single displayport cable and the problem does not exist with displayport ?

September 22, 2013 | 07:04 AM - Posted by Russ (not verified)

At first I thought this article may have been over egging the problem with eyefinity + crossfire. Having now disconnected my second HD 7970 and played a few games in eyefinity I have seen that I is not. Radeon Pro may tell me that I'm getting half the FPS that I was but my eyes see the same low FPS experience.

Not impressed AMD, I feel like a chump for spending £300 on a card whose only additional effect to my system has been extra heat and noise.

Still at least I can go back and play Farcry 3 now with out the giant oversized HUD problem.

Thanks For the good article and thanks for bending AMD's ear.

September 22, 2013 | 07:14 AM - Posted by Gregster

A damned good read thanks Ryan. AMD owners should be pleased that these issues are highlighted and making sure AMD keep on their toes. Like the FCAT article, it was good to see AMD address the issue and get it fixed and again, it was PCper who made AMD aware of the issues (like they didn't already know!)and forced them into sorting that out for their users.

September 22, 2013 | 08:23 AM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

I think a lot of hardware maker define CPU differently then Microsoft.you can ask I wrote a bug report to and today 13.10 beta.if I recall message signal interrupt and its extended variant were implemented in vista for consumer?ROFL we know how vista was received so this might be one overlooked good thing.my case?in regedit MSI was enabled (sad was not for some reason ,can't enable it)but no amount of MSI set!(if it isn't set isn't it defaulting to one msi / socket?but I have 4 CPU in my i5 2500k(ya only physical CPU ms say)so imagine amd 8 core fx lol stuck with 1 MSI / msix.I think this is the cause.sadly on my system none were set . I normally tweak but from what I saw on ms it isn't a case of 0 or 1.and ms recommend hex value.Rolf a bit too complex for my knowledge.but you guys know a lot of hardcore tweaker . if I'm right ? I would be like what the eck am I the only one that used vista ?

September 22, 2013 | 08:33 AM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

PS:what I wrote is for w8 64 bit!But I suspect a lot of hardware maker default to 1 (probably easier to implement)since socket come fro 2 to 12) detecting might be entertaining.

September 26, 2013 | 06:04 PM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

2.1.4.1. Resolution, Granularity, and Accuracy of System Time

http://www.windowstimestamp.com/description

Bottom line?I hate compromise!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.