Power consumption in ATI Eyefinity

[UsedTo88]

Just over a year ATi Eyefinity is now on the market and have new, more favorable active DisplayPort adapter, the cost drop. Active adapters cost until recently, however, loose 100 euros or more. Recently there is also much cheaper but more adapters for under 30 euros, which I was checking out for more details. I was sure that members present over here will help me, so I am posting here my doubts. I was looking more for a power consumption in ATI Eyefinity. Hope that you will provide some detailed notes soon.

[RasMus]

In terms of volume, it only makes the Radeon HD 5850 a difference whether Eyefinity is used or not. For the 3D accelerator comes with Windows under normal use and to 41.5 decibels louder by Eyefinity exactly three decibels.

Radeon HD 5000 card a second or third monitor connected in our case, it is the GPU no longer possible to switch to 2D mode. It is used a mixture of 2D and 3D clock, so the power consumption on Windows fails logically higher than if a single monitor is connected. Under load it is then again no more differences.

[Zombi]

The same limitation affects the temperatures under Windows that are in operation Eyefinity consistently higher. Under load, there is again no difference. Many users asks that why a Radeon HD card requires the use of three monitors, even one with a DisplayPort connector? The answer to the question is to look in the hardware. We will explain the problem using the example of the Radeon HD 58x0: Each card has six TMDS transmitter (Transition-Minimized Differential Signaling), which are crucial for the digital image reproduction. A single-link DVI-device uses a transmitter, a dual-link display contrast is two. HDMI and DisplayPort also satisfied with one. The sheer number of TMDS, therefore, represents no problem, but the number whose clock - for which there are only two. Since all the DisplayPort connectors require a separate clock out, DisplayPort is more than two monitors without having to operate in parallel. The DisplayPort has its own clock generator, one can control multiple display ports.

[Gefry]

The post mentioned by "Zombi", also explains why an ordinary DisplayPort adapter (whether on DVI or HDMI) does not help, as still one of the two clocks is required. The situation is different with an active adapter that can change the image signal itself. This had so far but the hook that the purchase price like around 100 euros, and it was not just a large selection. This has changed though. Thus, there are active for a short time DisplayPort adapter that cost much less and also deal with various connectors can. Who has a DisplayPort-D-SUB adapter investigated is from 26 euros find, Mini DisplayPort to DVI, it is one for 32 euros and the main DisplayPort to DVI Adapter already from 20 euros.

[ComPaCt]

Almost exactly a year ago has it been that we Eyefinity on three 24-inch displays have been viewed in detail. Not much, you might say. An important improvement, the so-called "Bezel-correction", there have been. This takes care of the forced interruption of the image produced by the monitors. Where one monitor ends and the other begins, inevitably creates a border that is not perceived by the graphics card. This is the image so again, as there would be not the edges. Our tests show that the Bezel-correction at Eyefinity works very well, so that the jumps in the picture can be removed almost completely and the edges to produce little more offset. With three 24-inch displays, there were at that time Eyefinity test is another, somewhat strange disadvantage. So it was only 16:10 resolution as appropriate, the full resolution, 5760x1200 pixels (3 x 1920x1200), the next smallest was already at 3840x1024 (3x 1280x1024), an advanced 5:4 format and therefore the image to the 16:10 displays distorted. There are now with a proper 5040x1050 16:10 resolution (3 x 1680x1050), which represents the image correctly. Only 2400x600 (3x 800x600) as "wrong" 4:3 resolution remained.