ATI cards and no 2 dual link DVI, why?

[The0ne]

Just trying to understand the reasoning behind this as Nvidia cards are usually equip with two of them while ATI cards are usually single/dual combos. This makes it hard for someone like me who doesn't xfire but have two 30" screens to drive.

[3DVagabond]

It's a hardware limitation with AMD. Does either of your 30" screens have displayport? If not, then you will need an active DP->Dual-Link DVI adapter.

[The0ne]

Nope, older 3007wfp monitors. Would like to go with ATI since price is cheaper but might have to go with Nvidia if there's no other option. Going to look and see how much adapter cost $100 bucks on newegg

[3DVagabond]

Yeah, they're ~$100. Depending on what cards you are looking at, you might be better off with nVidia. ie, unless the nVidia card you are looking at is $100 more. Or, you need capabilities that AMD is superior in. OpenCL, for example.

[Rikard]

Sapphire Flex or Sapphire Vapor-X has the connectors you seek.

[3DVagabond]

Originally Posted by Rikard

Sapphire Flex or Sapphire Vapor-X has the connectors you seek.

Flex/Vapor-X just allows you to run Eyefinity without using displayport. They still only have 1x dual-link DVI.

[Rikard]

Originally Posted by 3DVagabond

Flex/Vapor-X just allows you to run Eyefinity without using displayport. They still only have 1x dual-link DVI.

Or is looks not everything?

[lambchops511]

Originally Posted by Rikard

Or is looks not everything?

Looks is not everything. Check spec.

[Rikard]

Originally Posted by lambchops511

Looks is not everything. Check spec.

Would if I could. The specs listed by the retailer I bought it from are wrong. The 7950 Vapor-X listed in Sapphire's site is a different card than the one I have.

[The0ne]

Yea, look is not everything. I have to double check the specs when I am researching. My best bet is Nvidia since even their very low end cards have dual link DVI connectors.

[djsb]

I was going to mention that the single link and dual link connectors would obviously have identical pin holes so that either type of cable could fit into it, but then I noticed that all of the holes also have contacts in them, seemingly for no reason. Weird.

[Rikard]

Originally Posted by djsb

I was going to mention that the single link and dual link connectors would obviously have identical pin holes so that either type of cable could fit into it, but then I noticed that all of the holes also have contacts in them,

Yep, that is why I posted the photo

Originally Posted by djsb

seemingly for no reason.

What makes you say that?

Originally Posted by djsb

Weird.

Yes, everything about this card is weird. In a great way!

[gorobei]

the reason why is pretty simple:
-not enough 25 by 1X monitors with only dvi to bother adding the extra tmds clocks to the base design.
-daisy chained displayport monitors means you only need 1 output on the card.

[cmdrdredd]

For some people there is no excuse for this oversight by AMD. They need this functionality.

I'm not one of these people but to expect everyone to have a Display Port monitor or buy an expensive adapter is a bit much.

[gorobei]

Originally Posted by cmdrdredd

For some people there is no excuse for this oversight by AMD. They need this functionality.

I'm not one of these people but to expect everyone to have a Display Port monitor or buy an expensive adapter is a bit much.

take: total # of 27/30" 2560 monitor owners
subtract: those that have 2 dvi only units
subtract: the people who dont want to pay the 100$ for active dp to dvi-d
subtract: those that still have working 5 year old units
= very small number of potential customers that will generate enough revenue to offset the cost of implementing the extra tmds.

and since displayport1.2 has daisychaining, means that in 1-2 years all those cable an output ports will go away. and if the main display output shifts to the motherboard like intel wants, even less reason to support legacy hardware.

by your logic they should also include 3 full size dvi-d ports which would make all cards triple slot.
apple regularly forces it users to upgrade to new tech mostly in the name of elegance(smaller ports = thinner and prettier) but also for bottom line reasons. dp is the future, and im pretty sure no one is clamoring for vga outs beyond a few automated tooling machine operators still running on serial port connections.

besides, the small minority of users with 2 3007s versus those with one 3007 who buy a 3011 later on means they have a reasonable expectation of 1 dp monitor in the mix.

[cmdrdredd]

So we're to all throw away our perfectly working DVI monitors and buy brand new display port units? That's what AMD thinks we should do?

The fact that they leave out people who might already have 2 perfectly working monitors that require Dual link DVI is astonishing to me.

[gorobei]

there are perfectly good agp motherboards, should amd and nv be required by law to make agp 79x0 and 6x0 cards too?

again, the number of people who:
*paid 1100$ for a 2560x1?00
*and wont pay 100 bucks more for a dp adapter
*and bought 2 of the same dvi only model

ARE A MINISCULE PORTION of the owners of working 2560 monitors.

and they are fine if they only bought a single 3007, and later bought a 3008 or 3011. the 3007 is entirely covered by the dvi-d port.

[Vesku]

Originally Posted by cmdrdredd

So we're to all throw away our perfectly working DVI monitors and buy brand new display port units? That's what AMD thinks we should do?

The fact that they leave out people who might already have 2 perfectly working monitors that require Dual link DVI is astonishing to me.

No, they made sure there would be adapters available. As stated above by gorobei they decided on that method rather than absorbing the costs themselves on every card. You don't have to like it but there are options other than throwing away your monitor.

[cmdrdredd]

Originally Posted by Vesku

No, they made sure there would be adapters available. As stated above by gorobei they decided on that method rather than absorbing the costs themselves on every card. You don't have to like it but there are options other than throwing away your monitor.

Including buying Nvidia instead because they support a particular situation without spending an extra $100 or so on adapters.

If you supply two DVI ports why wouldn't they both be Dual link? Are you saying they would have to raise prices on their cards due to this? I highly doubt it.

Doesn't matter to me like I said, but I still fail to see the reason behind this decision to put two DVI ports but only one dual link.

[Vesku]

Yes, buying Nvidia instead is a perfectly valid option. I doubt including it would raise prices noticeably. Instead it is an extra cost they'd have to absorb. I'm sure they considered the potential for lost custom when making the design decision. Evident from them planning ahead to ensure adapters would be available.

[3DVagabond]

The options are to get an active adapter, or save $40 overall and buy the slower card, according to the cheapest prices on Newegg.