Max resolution of an integrated graphics processor?

AMD's website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out tech specs.
Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is of the AMD A6-8570E
APU? I can't seem to find this basic information anywhere. Its graphics
is simply listed as "R5 series graphics"!

AMD PRO A A6 6th Gen PRO A6-8570E
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-PRO-A-A6-...=1594389954087

Yousuf Khan wrote:
AMD's website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out tech specs.
Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is of the AMD A6-8570E
APU? I can't seem to find this basic information anywhere. Its graphics
is simply listed as "R5 series graphics"!

AMD PRO A A6 6th Gen PRO A6-8570E
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-PRO-A-A6-...=1594389954087


It has two CPU cores and four graphics cores (256 shaders?). .

That's all I could discover.

It's dual display, meaning perhaps that there
is no Eyefinity.

Without succinct specs like "DisplayPort 1.2" or "HDMI 1.4",
we can't even hazard a guess.

The AMD website seems to me, to have been well arranged
to prevent indexing.

They could be WDC or Seagate, in terms of their data hoarding habits.

The surface mappings on a card, do go up to ridiculous values.
My video card that drives 4K displays, the counters go to 16K
on each axis.

Paul

Yousuf Khan wrote:

AMD's website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out tech specs.
Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is of the AMD A6-8570E
APU? I can't seem to find this basic information anywhere. Its graphics
is simply listed as "R5 series graphics"!

AMD PRO A A6 6th Gen PRO A6-8570E
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-PRO-A-A6-...=1594389954087

I went to:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/spec...ons/processors

Select "AMD PRO A-series" for Family. The PRO A-8570 was listed (don't
know what the "E" suffix means), so I clicked that and got pretty much a
boob-level list of attributes. Worthless.

I search around. About all I found were sites mentioning the R5 series
of video was integrated into the APU, but no max screen resolution or
list of supported resolutions.

https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/a...d-pro-a6-8570e

Again, worthless. However, you could install their driver and
ancilliary software which queries the video to then let you know to what
resolutions you could use with the APU. Just remember that you really
should use the native resolution of the monitor to eliminate video
artifacts, like herring bone, color tinging, fuzziness.

I found some benchmark sites, like:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php...-8570E&id=2926

Nope, no screen resolution mention, but it does confirm what other sites
said that this is a low-end entry-level graphics controller often used
in "thin clients" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client) or TIO
(Tiny-In-One) boxes, or mobile platforms, and not for use for gaming or
video editing, but more for cheap workstations to do low-level tasks
(doc editing, web browsing, e-mail, spreadsheets, etc). You see this
APU used inside mini cases in all-in-one monitors (with a large shell or
the CPU box attached to the back) to minimize the desktop footprint to
mostly just the monitor and keyboard. Probably the biggest performance
degrade for CPU-embedded graphics is it uses shared memory; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_graphics_memory. System memory
(SDRAM) is slower but cheaper than the more expensive video RAM (that
you get with video cards). If your mobo doesn't allowed dedicated
shared memory for onboard video, for example, gaming assets get moved to
local storage when out of system memory, so even s-l-o-w-e-r. If
dedicated shared memory is available, it takes a permanent bite out of
system memory to lower what is available to the OS and your programs.

Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU tasks.

Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
AMD's website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out tech specs.
Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is of the AMD A6-8570E
APU? I can't seem to find this basic information anywhere. Its graphics
is simply listed as "R5 series graphics"!

AMD PRO A A6 6th Gen PRO A6-8570E
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-PRO-A-A6-...=1594389954087


It has two CPU cores and four graphics cores (256 shaders?). .

That's all I could discover.

It's dual display, meaning perhaps that there
is no Eyefinity.

Without succinct specs like "DisplayPort 1.2" or "HDMI 1.4",
we can't even hazard a guess.

On here it says it supports DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a. So that means it can do
4K.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...0A6-8570E.html

Chris wrote:

On here it says it supports DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a. So that means it can do
4K.

reports on some Dell machines using that APU say it can do 4K over DP
but only 2K over HDMI

On 7/10/2020 3:38 PM, Chris wrote:
On here it says it supports DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a. So that means it can do
4K.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...0A6-8570E.html

Oh great, thanks! So the DisplayPort or HDMI specs will reveal the
resolution? I didn't even think of that.

Yousuf Khan

On 7/10/2020 3:37 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
I went to:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/spec...ons/processors

Select "AMD PRO A-series" for Family. The PRO A-8570 was listed (don't
know what the "E" suffix means), so I clicked that and got pretty much a
boob-level list of attributes. Worthless.

I search around. About all I found were sites mentioning the R5 series
of video was integrated into the APU, but no max screen resolution or
list of supported resolutions.

Yeah, same here, did the same thing. Say what you will about Intel and
Nvidia, but at least their technical specs actually include technical
specs on their websites.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:37:42, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
mostly just the monitor and keyboard. Probably the biggest performance
degrade for CPU-embedded graphics is it uses shared memory; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_graphics_memory. System memory
(SDRAM) is slower but cheaper than the more expensive video RAM (that
you get with video cards). If your mobo doesn't allowed dedicated
shared memory for onboard video, for example, gaming assets get moved to
local storage when out of system memory, so even s-l-o-w-e-r. If
dedicated shared memory is available, it takes a permanent bite out of
system memory to lower what is available to the OS and your programs.

Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU tasks.

That _is_ true today. It doesn't _have_ to be: I remember building for
my brother a system based around a motherboard that had on-board video,
but _not_ shared memory: there were dedicated video memory chips - they
just happened to be located on the motherboard. (And not a shared bus to
them, either.) That was a very long time ago, though - I think it might
have been in 486 or early Pentium days.

I don't think any mobo that has on-board video these days has separate
video memory, or at least, has other compromises that degrade
performance (video, general processing, or both). It doesn't have to be
so - for example, the majority of mobos these days have on-board sound,
and ditto disc controllers, and ports (I remember when _all_ of these
were on plug-in cards!) - but for some reason, on-board video is
considered an excuse to cut corners. (Arguably, justifiably, for the
majority of users.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:37:42, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
mostly just the monitor and keyboard. Probably the biggest performance
degrade for CPU-embedded graphics is it uses shared memory; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_graphics_memory. System memory
(SDRAM) is slower but cheaper than the more expensive video RAM (that
you get with video cards). If your mobo doesn't allowed dedicated
shared memory for onboard video, for example, gaming assets get moved to
local storage when out of system memory, so even s-l-o-w-e-r. If
dedicated shared memory is available, it takes a permanent bite out of
system memory to lower what is available to the OS and your programs.

Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU tasks.

That _is_ true today. It doesn't _have_ to be: I remember building for
my brother a system based around a motherboard that had on-board video,
but _not_ shared memory: there were dedicated video memory chips - they
just happened to be located on the motherboard. (And not a shared bus to
them, either.) That was a very long time ago, though - I think it might
have been in 486 or early Pentium days.

I don't think any mobo that has on-board video these days has separate
video memory, or at least, has other compromises that degrade
performance (video, general processing, or both). It doesn't have to be
so - for example, the majority of mobos these days have on-board sound,
and ditto disc controllers, and ports (I remember when _all_ of these
were on plug-in cards!) - but for some reason, on-board video is
considered an excuse to cut corners. (Arguably, justifiably, for the
majority of users.)

AMD put out a single generation of designs, with a 32-bit wide memory
chip off the side. The memory was soldered to the motherboard. It was
so useless, I couldn't even tell you where it connected to the system.
The "boost" from having it was zero. That made it some kind of hood ornament.

The 780G was an example of "side-port memory".

Here's a picture, where the pink "performance cache" on the right hand
side, was the side-port memory.

https://img.hexus.net/v2/motherboard...785G/Block.jpg

Paul

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 7/10/2020 3:38 PM, Chris wrote:
On here it says it supports DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a. So that means it can do
4K.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...0A6-8570E.html

Oh great, thanks! So the DisplayPort or HDMI specs will reveal the
resolution? I didn't even think of that.

It's not guaranteed, but it's usually a good guide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

VanguardLH wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

AMD's website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out tech specs.
Does anybody know what the maximum resolution is of the AMD A6-8570E
APU? I can't seem to find this basic information anywhere. Its graphics
is simply listed as "R5 series graphics"!

AMD PRO A A6 6th Gen PRO A6-8570E
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-PRO-A-A6-...=1594389954087


Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU tasks.

Most computers are used for browsing the Internet, email and word
processing or other equally basic desktop tasks. On board graphics is
perfectly good for that. That's why they're so common.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 18:19:44, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:37:42, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
mostly just the monitor and keyboard. Probably the biggest performance
degrade for CPU-embedded graphics is it uses shared memory; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_graphics_memory. System memory
(SDRAM) is slower but cheaper than the more expensive video RAM (that
you get with video cards). If your mobo doesn't allowed dedicated
shared memory for onboard video, for example, gaming assets get moved to
local storage when out of system memory, so even s-l-o-w-e-r. If
dedicated shared memory is available, it takes a permanent bite out of
system memory to lower what is available to the OS and your programs.

Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU tasks.
That _is_ true today. It doesn't _have_ to be: I remember building
for my brother a system based around a motherboard that had on-board
video, but _not_ shared memory: there were dedicated video memory
chips - they just happened to be located on the motherboard. (And not
a shared bus to them, either.) That was a very long time ago, though
- I think it might have been in 486 or early Pentium days.
I don't think any mobo that has on-board video these days has
separate video memory, or at least, has other compromises that
degrade performance (video, general processing, or both). It doesn't
have to be so - for example, the majority of mobos these days have
on-board sound, and ditto disc controllers, and ports (I remember
when _all_ of these were on plug-in cards!) - but for some reason,
on-board video is considered an excuse to cut corners. (Arguably,
justifiably, for the majority of users.)

AMD put out a single generation of designs, with a 32-bit wide memory
chip off the side. The memory was soldered to the motherboard. It was
so useless, I couldn't even tell you where it connected to the system.
The "boost" from having it was zero. That made it some kind of hood ornament.

The 780G was an example of "side-port memory".

Here's a picture, where the pink "performance cache" on the right hand
side, was the side-port memory.

https://img.hexus.net/v2/motherboard...785G/Block.jpg

Paul

I see that diagramme mentions DVI, HDMI, PCI Express, 6 SATA and 12 USB.
The board I'm thinking of was far before any of those first three; I'm
not even sure it had USB, but if it did, I'm pretty sure it didn't have
anywhere near 12 of them. It was certainly no later than XP - might have
even been in '9x days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The early worm gets the bird.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 18:19:44, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:37:42, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
mostly just the monitor and keyboard. Probably the biggest performance
degrade for CPU-embedded graphics is it uses shared memory; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_graphics_memory. System memory
(SDRAM) is slower but cheaper than the more expensive video RAM (that
you get with video cards). If your mobo doesn't allowed dedicated
shared memory for onboard video, for example, gaming assets get
moved to
local storage when out of system memory, so even s-l-o-w-e-r. If
dedicated shared memory is available, it takes a permanent bite out of
system memory to lower what is available to the OS and your programs.

Unless you want a just-okay system, you don't want to use onboard
video.
Get a video card. Then you'll also be able to get more specs. Onboard
video is for a workhouse setup doing typical desktop apps, but bad if
you want to do gaming, video processing, or other high-demand GPU
tasks.
That _is_ true today. It doesn't _have_ to be: I remember building
for my brother a system based around a motherboard that had on-board
video, but _not_ shared memory: there were dedicated video memory
chips - they just happened to be located on the motherboard. (And
not a shared bus to them, either.) That was a very long time ago,
though - I think it might have been in 486 or early Pentium days.
I don't think any mobo that has on-board video these days has
separate video memory, or at least, has other compromises that
degrade performance (video, general processing, or both). It doesn't
have to be so - for example, the majority of mobos these days have
on-board sound, and ditto disc controllers, and ports (I remember
when _all_ of these were on plug-in cards!) - but for some reason,
on-board video is considered an excuse to cut corners. (Arguably,
justifiably, for the majority of users.)

AMD put out a single generation of designs, with a 32-bit wide memory
chip off the side. The memory was soldered to the motherboard. It was
so useless, I couldn't even tell you where it connected to the system.
The "boost" from having it was zero. That made it some kind of hood
ornament.

The 780G was an example of "side-port memory".

Here's a picture, where the pink "performance cache" on the right hand
side, was the side-port memory.

https://img.hexus.net/v2/motherboard...785G/Block.jpg

Paul

I see that diagramme mentions DVI, HDMI, PCI Express, 6 SATA and 12 USB.
The board I'm thinking of was far before any of those first three; I'm
not even sure it had USB, but if it did, I'm pretty sure it didn't have
anywhere near 12 of them. It was certainly no later than XP - might have
even been in '9x days.

If you go back far enough in the history of
computing, the CPU didn't have a cache.

Instead, they had some sort of cache DIMM. There was
a socket for the cache DIMM, and the user was expected
to pony up for this "missing bit of their CPU" :-)

Also, caching schemes back then, only "covered" a
limited address range. Maybe you had 512MB of main memory,
and the cache only covered the first 256MB. Programs
running in the lower part of memory "go like snot".
Programs in the upper part of memory would be
quite slow by comparison (no cache to hit on).
So not only was cache an "option", it didn't even
match the arch it was plugged into :-)

*******

This motherboard covers a few concepts. See page 11,
which has a picture of the motherboard.

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/m...p599vm-104.pdf

The processor might have L1 inside.

The L2 consists of two chips, soldered to the motherboard.
(No cache DIMM in this case.) There's an L2 cache chip
(which should really be 64 bits wide or so). There's
a TAG RAM, and that might be the Content Addressable Memory
that controls the cache static RAM chip.

The board has an SIS Northbridge with integrated graphics.
The graphics were so gutless (a basic frame buffer), the
chip only draws 2W and doesn't need a heatsink. But next
to the Northbridge, is video RAM for the frame buffer.
Four chips, totaling 8MB. The width of the memory array,
would be a function of what room they had for pins for the
purpose, on the Northbridge. While you would prefer the
four chips to be 16 bits wide each, they could do anything
they wanted for a frame buffer. Maybe that RAM interface
only worked, if the board features no AGP slot.

Static RAM never really ran all that fast. But maybe two
years ago, I found a static RAM chip that runs at 2GHz.
Only trouble is, each chip is $500, which means there's
likely only one (desperate) customer for it :-) If the
chip was $4, I could "see some interesting home projects".
But at $500, the item goes into my "what were they thinking"
file. It might cost $20K to do a home project.

Paul

Chris wrote:

Most computers are used for browsing the Internet, email and word
processing or other equally basic desktop tasks. On board graphics is
perfectly good for that. That's why they're so common.

And why lots of users are satisfied with onboard video. Look at who
buys Chromebooks. ChromeOS: Chrome in disguise.

On 2020-07-10 7:29 p.m., VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote:

Most computers are used for browsing the Internet, email and word
processing or other equally basic desktop tasks. On board graphics is
perfectly good for that. That's why they're so common.

And why lots of users are satisfied with onboard video. Look at who
buys Chromebooks. ChromeOS: Chrome in disguise.


I have an Intel i7 8700 with Intel HD 630 on chip graphics and it does a
pretty decent job even on newer games, Granted, not as good as a high
price video card but quite adequate.

Rene