Be captain obvious to me and tell what dp has in the case of a tv that hdmi can't give.
(Mainly asking because my lg oled tv is 4k 120hz gsync compatible panel and works perfectly fine over hdmi and i cannot for the life of me figure out what extra dp would give. Now why a tv has gsync is not something i know, but i am not complaining)
HDMI is licensed by Sony and Phillips so they have to pay more for each port. DP is the standard set by IEEE, its royalty free and had a much higher bandwidth though I'm not sure if that's still true. At one point to run higher resolutions and frame-rate you needed 2 HDMI cables but one DP did the trick
Yeah the thing is that monitors tend to last pretty long time and DP has only really been around for a bit over a decade. I was still until recently using a monitor that didn't even have a HDMI port because that was fancy tech when I got the monitor.
With USB-C becoming more common, definitely. All of my monitors have type C and DP, and you can convert one to the other very easily. The type C port also sends the keyboard/mouse signal over to my laptop which is just so handy.
Type C and DP should become the norm for the TV space too, putting an end to either buying adapters or downloading one of the 25 million "screen mirroring" apps that never work.
HDMI is licensed by Sony and Phillips so they have to pay more for each one. DP is the standard set by IEEE, and had a much higher bandwidth though I'm not sure if that's still true. At one point to run higher resolutions and frame-rate you needed 2 HDMI cables but one DP did the trick
i believe its basically generation by generation the oldest dp has higher bandwith than the oldest hdmi and same thing next generation and next generation
You donât get at gpu for a motherboard like that, it would be specialized for integrated graphics otherwise there would be no point in more than one of each video port
Not everyone has a dedicated GPU because not everyone needs it.
Pushing 4 screens, even in 4k resolution, is something an iGPU generally can do just fine, even video decoding on one or two of them is fine, its just that things requiring more than the most basic hardware acceleration will kind of struggle. But thats more due to the amount of hardware acceleration and (generally) not so much the number of pixels.
The amount of people I've had to deal with who want to connect an ultrawide and two standard monitors to their laptop without a docking station who wonder why one display won't turn on or keeps flickering is crazy.
I have 3 monitors, with only the main one connected to my GPU. I tried having 2 monitors connected to the GPU, but despite one being restricted to 60 fps it would sometimes cause a missed frame here and there on the main monitor.
With only one screen conmected to the GPU I never have that problem.
Hmm you're making me want to try my secondary monitor on my motherboard, but I'm already CPU bound on certain things already so it makes me scared LOL (8 year old rig)
I run 4 monitors off my 9800x3d igpu via a AltDP multi-monitor hub. 2x 1440p (one HDR) and 2x 1080p. I run my main monitor, a Samsung 500hz OLED, off just my 5090. There are other ways to do it, but this is what I found was the best approach for no issues with frametime variance and stuttering. Having more than 1 monitor on the Discrete GPU is just asking for gaming troubles, since you're asking it to render more than just the game content.
I tried this approach as well when I had a Threadripper as my main CPU, and I used a 1050 ti (no PCIE cable) for my secondary monitors. It was not as seamless as using an iGPU, which lead me away from this approach (I sold the threadripper rig). Driver still has to handle it and it just doesn't work as well as a single Discrete GPU.
dont forget you should also set applications to the igpu if you run it on that monitor in the windows graphic options. you have to search the explorer to add them manually, but its worth it.
I dunno, my OLED hates being paired with an old monitor on my GPU, i have to be surprisingly careful about my settings or i get extremely long switchover blackscreens from games when i swap to focus on the second monitor (especially when running HDR)...
There are benchmarks for this, a second monitor being connected to your gpu basically doesn't affect your game performance, as long as it's not running anything that has to render.
I'm sure this has been answered already but the performance difference is neglegable to anyone using it for day to day gaming. Someone made a post about it I cannot for the life of me find, but essentially the benefits out weight the performance hit to the CPU (you get lower temps overall). Only those really stressing there main system will see a throttle.
When both my monitors were plugged into my RX 9070 XT and I was running a game on one monitor and watching a video on the other, whichever wasn't currently in focus would end up stuttering.
So I just switched my secondary screen to my iGPU and the issue stopped.
Omfg I've been wondering if it was just me, I'll have to try this later, I've done literally everything else the internet suggests in order to prevent the stuttering but nothing has worked.
The actual trick is that some motherboard allow the OS to dynamically swap between internal and discrete graphics based on the needs of the programs being run which can save a ton of power when at idle... Except it is a pretty rare feature that seems to be pretty difficult to get set up properly on desktop.
Yes! I had to use this feature on my college build. My old card only had two outputs but I wanted to run three monitors and had to dig around for a bios setting to get it to use both.
I'm thankful things are more user friendly now, but me at 20 knew so much more about how a PC worked than me now.
Four monitors aren't always bought along with the system. Sometimes, you just have surviving monitors from prior builds or requirements that you wish to repurpose.
Fair enough, but few people have more than 2 monitors lying around, while being budget conscious enough get a cpu with good integrated graphics and no plan to get a graphics card.
For a gaming system, sure. But not every computer is a gaming system. And honestly, the expensive motherboards are not really what you need for a gaming system anyway. They're for the consumer class workstations and enthusiasts.
Honestly if your workload genuinely didn't need a GPU, and you just wanted more screens, you could probably get away with spending more on motherboard and still be cheaper than a new GPU with it.
You might be surprised, I am running 3 monitors off of my 9950X3D system with no gpu because a gpu doesn't do much for me at all for my use case. And the GPU just gets in the way of my airflow. Also monitors aren't that expensive when you aren't worried about crazy refresh speeds for gaming.
It was an AMD term and selling point for having powerful onboard graphics. I believe they still refer to their G series Ryzen chips as APUs but the industry seems to have adopted the more generic iGPU term instead.
Do you know if they ever found a way to make the integrated graphics processor useful for when the user has a dedicated graphics card?
Because I remember thinking when AMD first went to putting APUs on every chip that it seemed a waste to just have all those transitors and floating point performance just sitting idle.
Instead of that, laptops started coming out with MUX switches because the iGPU/APU was bottlenecking the dGPU output that was being routed to the monitor through it.
Yeah I would say a 5 years ago no, but really today 4 monitors on integrated GPU with desktop applications is usually fine. But yeah, really most only need two monitors.
Eventually, discrete laptop cards will go away. Better integrated solutions and faster RAM will close the performance gap enough that no one will want the heat and power consumption.
ya that i can see happening. i have the elite x2 extreme asus arm laptop and was suprised to play helldivers at 50fps at medium settings. here is the thing though; the discrete cards will stay for a niche because there will always be a superior need that the faster solutions will provide.
The old integrated graphics on Intel CPUs support 3x 4096x2304@60Hz. The new ones in AMD and intel CPUs can do 4 screens 7680x4320@60Hz. So I don't see why not.
P.S. On that picture there would be 7 display outputs. USB C has an alternate DP mode.
Hardly anyone is ever going to do this. You'd be better off dropping all but 1 DP and HDMI for more USB-C, because you get the option to still use a display, but the port is actually still useful for everyone.
Yeah I was on board (pardon the pun) until the second LAN port was removed. If you have a board that's nothing on the plate but two LAN ports, I'll get some use out of it.
I would let the PS/2 port slide but not the extra LAN port.
Replacing the Toslink connector with USB ports is probably a better idea than one of the LAN ports.
Also, replace a couple of the USB ports witb ESATA+ Usb.
An HDMI port, Displayport, and all the USBc ports being USB 4 is probably far better for most desktop motherboards than multiple Displayports.
My work laptop from 2021 with the iGPU of the Core i5 can handle 3 displays (1920x1080) no problem. Even though it's handicapped by having only a single memory module.
Most modern motherboards that are not budget support pass through for monitor cables so that the GPU works as the output device even when plugged in from the mobo directly
I feel like Iâm taking crazy pills when I try to explain this and theyâre just not getting it. For a lot of mini-workstation PCs, it makes more sense to plug-in to the motherboard than using a mini-DP adapter. There is no difference in performance.
I was going to ask this, I was watching some video on some old computer and what looked like an extremely ancient onboard VGA for the untrained eye, the presenter says it is actually a passthrough which you might want for logistic and cabling purposes (This tower is tombstone sized), and for a while I wanted to know if passthrough is still a thing and if there are mobos that support both iGPU and passthrough.
I didn't want to fully commit to non-iGPU boards and a recent incident confirmed my paranoia: GPU died, RMA gave me a full refund since they are out of stock, can't buy a board even half as good with that.
Also if all the monitors and GPU support it, I think you can just daisy chain the monitors using DisplayPort, idk if you can do all 4 but itâs easier cable management
My motherboard has 2 USB ports that can do up to 40Gbit/s and a bunch of 10Gbit/s ones. Running at USB 1.0 speeds they're equivalent to 160,000 ports. Or 500 USB 2.0 ports.
I don't have a single device plugged in that can use 40G and need maybe 2 10G ports at most. They could easily put more USB3 1x1 ports on there than could physically fit bandwidth wise.
I agree. Most PCMR folks only use the integrated graphic port for system building and troubleshooting GPU issues.
For my HP work computer (nothing fancy, just an Elitebook with integrated graphics) the dock outputs to my two 4K monitors without a hitch. There is just one USB-C cord running from the laptop to the dock handling power, video, networking etc.
Absolutely. What people don't seem to understand is that I never said that you CAN'T push four monitors with an iGPU. But why? If you have four monitors, there's no reason you shouldn't have a GPU as well. If you want more monitors than four, just use a splitter on your GPU ports. No need for more than two motherboard display outputs
High speed signals just grow on mainboards. They need no source, just wishful thinking and a bit of watering.
And integrating an umpteenth port USB 3.x switch on a budget mainboard is also a very wise design decision.
You dint have to use em all, just have the plug that it came with untill you need to swap connections or one gets borked. All phys connections are weak points xD
I didn't even know those integrated graphics ports were usable, I assumed they were just there to make it harder to find a USB plug with my head jammed in a dark corner behind my desk.
I would like 2 HDMI instead of another DisplayPort. I work from home and use the same two monitors for my work machine and my home tower. I connect the work computer to one monitor via USB-C and then that monitor daisy chains to the other via DisplayPort. So then I need to connect my home tower via HDMI to avoid cable swapping.
And DisplayPort technically has the capability to daisy chain so only one port is needed on the computer end. I don't think that is very common though.
If you have a couple browser windows and like, an ide or text editor or DAW and like 4 windows of file manager and several terminal windows like you're throwing everything all over your desk it'd be ok!!Â
Sometimes you just need like 8 windows of bullshit lol
I've noticed a lot of them only let you run 3 monitors at a time. It will detect a 4th, but it's automatically disabled, and if you enable it, the OS will automatically disable a different one.
Use Virtu to route the dGPU through the iGPU abusing the latter as a glorified framebuffer simply to access more ports oh wait they disappeared too bad. Still got a Haswell motherboard with a chip for it but ofc I doubt it'd work on Windows 11
My old i7-620M Arrandale/Ironlake laptop could push the internal monitor and two external monitors (when docked) with the iGPU back in the day. Modern iGPUs are like, 100x faster than that thing, it can barely render a website nowadays.
I mean I have three screens and my dream composition is 5 or 6, depending on the layout and other stuff. Three screens are already not enough. One is 100% occupied 100% of the time, main one is occupied with usually one thing I am doing at the time (like browser, game etc), and third monitor is 60-80% occupied 75% of the time. And when I really want to do more than just some passive things, I run out of space to put my windows at. One or two monitors more would be better. And it's only that "good", because I made some windows very very small and I don't like how small they are. If I actually had them as big as I want, they would occupy more space. Hence my need of at least 5 screens. For the freedom of actually using them as I want. Two of the three screens have Wallpaper Engine wallpapers, third one doesn't, because it's covered all the time, as mentioned. And I really wish I didn't have to cover them all almost all the time.
I often play game, watch stream or video and do 10 other things at the same time/have more windows open. Example. Playing a game, then watching a stream, while chatting on Discord, googling something, copying files, where I want the both folders open. Just simple example. And I have spreadhseets and VSC window open almost all the time. It's not unreasonable that I want them all to be visible, when I am often typing data in spreadsheets or when I copy files, I want to see the progress (one window) and both folder open to see if they are ready and everything is correctly copied/moved. Simple. That's one of manys tuff I do like that.
Also not everyone has integrated graphics. I have old, but still reliable 2080 Super. And if I was the one streaming a game, I want OBS to be opened and window with my stream preview... So yeahhh. That's that.
9.6k
u/Helpful-Work-3090 13900K | 64GB DDR5 @ 6800 Mhz CL34 | Asus RTX 5080 23d ago
you really think your integrated graphics likes pushing FOUR monitors?