Question AMD Ryzen 5 2400G built-in graphics maximum refresh rate at 1920x1080

[ArtOdds]

Hi guys! What is the maximum refresh rate I can get at 1920x1080 using Ryzen 5 2400G built-in graphics?

I have a BenQ XL2410T monitor which supports 1920x1080@120Hz via DVI-D Dual Link. But after connecting it to motherboard's DVI-D port I could get only 60Hz. Later I read the motherboards specs and found out that its "1 x DVI-D port, supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200@60Hz, 1 x HDMI™ 1.4 port, supports a maximum resolution of 4096x2160 @30Hz, 2560x1600 @60Hz".

Why so?! DVI-D Dual Link (24+1 pin) should support 1920×1200@120Hz and 1920×1080@120Hz. I researched the specs of other motherboards of different manufactures and everywhere the same feature "max. res. 1920x1200@60Hz via DVI-D". Is this a limitation of the Radeon Vega 11 graphics itself?

And what about 144Hz monitors that use HDMI as their primary video interface - do they have a similar issue of limited refresh rates at 1920x1080 while using Ryzen 5 2400G integrated graphics? Please help me out, I'm rather confused and disappointed in my expectations.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

No, it's the limitations of the connection (ie DVI-D) Use HDMI/DP for faster refresh rates.

I think DVI-D is limited to 85hz at 1080p.

Edit: Obviously it's dependant on the game, or app whether you achieve high hz. But on the dekstop there is no reason why not.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

The 2400g is not going to get better than 60fps at 1080p, so it really does not matter.

 

[ArtOdds]

The 2400g is not going to get better than 60fps at 1080p, so it really does not matter.

Well, while gaming may be yes, but using PC in other areas - my eyes feel the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates very sharply.

I think DVI-D is limited to 85hz at 1080p.

I had no problems with 120Hz at 1080p while using this same monitor's DVI-D Dual Link connection to GT 730 and even ATI Radeon 3200 built-in graphics of my old motherboard manufactured in 2008.

Is it possible that 2018 processor's integrated graphics doesn't support 1920x1080@120Hz at all?

AMD promotes Vega 11 graphics as an analogue of GT 1030 and GTX 460 discreet cards - while even much cheaper and older cards could easiely give 120Hz refresh rate at FullHD resolution with proper monitor driver.

 

[Third-Eye]

Well, while gaming may be yes, but using PC in other areas - my eyes feel the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates very sharply.



I had no problems with 120Hz at 1080p while using this same monitor's DVI-D Dual Link connection to GT 730 and even ATI Radeon 3200 built-in graphics of my old motherboard manufactured in 2008.

Is it possible that 2018 processor's integrated graphics doesn't support 1920x1080@120Hz at all?

AMD promotes Vega 11 graphics as an analogue of GT 1030 and GTX 460 discreet cards - while even much cheaper and older cards could easiely give 120Hz refresh rate at FullHD resolution with proper monitor driver.

What is the motherboard? It might just be a limitation of the type of DVI on the board.

 

[ArtOdds]

What is the motherboard? It might just be a limitation of the type of DVI on the board.

It might be - MSI B450M PRO-VDH PLUS.

 

[Third-Eye]

It might be - MSI B450M PRO-VDH PLUS.

The manual for that board says:

1x VGA port, supports a maximum resolution of
2048x1280@60Hz, 1920x1200@60Hz*
y
1x DVI-D port, supports a maximum resolution of
1920x1200@60Hz*
y
1x HDMI™ 1.4 port, supports a maximum resolution of
4096x2160 @30Hz, 2560x1600 @60Hz*
* Only support when using Ryzen™ with Radeon™ Vega
Graphics, 2nd Gen AMD Ryzen™ with Radeon™ Graphics and
Athlon™ with Radeon™ Vega Graphics processors
* Maximum shared memory of 2048 MB

So there it is clearly that it doesn't support 120hz. You already stated it, i just confirmed it.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Well, while gaming may be yes, but using PC in other areas - my eyes feel the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates very sharply.

You must have eyes like an eagle, the only difference I can see is a bigger trail from the mouse when moving it very fast.

Looks like you are going to need a GPU or a different motherboard. I suspect you will have trouble finding a mobo that will have the specifications to support higher than 60hz though because those iGPUs dont have enough power for highrefresh rate. So it is a corner that the mobo manufactures can cut.

I'd just go get a used 570 for under a $100. It is exponentially better than the iGPU of the 2400g.

 

[ArtOdds]

1x HDMI™ 1.4 port, supports a maximum resolution of
4096x2160 @30Hz, 2560x1600 @60Hz*

Interesting that nothing is said about 1920x1080 resolution - it gives some hope that HDMI monitors have better chances of 120Hz.

I suspect you will have trouble finding a mobo that will have the specifications to support higher than 60hz though because those iGPUs dont have enough power for highrefresh rate. So it is a corner that the mobo manufactures can cut.

DVI is pretty outdated video interface now - I could understand if the mobo manufactures cut the support of high refresh rates via it. But HDMI still feels good IMO - users like me would be very angry

As to eagle eyes - all people are different, I start to feel eye strain at 75Hz soon and at 60Hz very soon; when refresh rate is 100Hz or higher, I'm OK.

 

[Karadjgne]

Dvi is all different. Not only different connections with dvi-d single link and dvi-d dual link, but what the monitor will support and the motherboard/gpu outputs. Dvi-d dual link is well capable of 144Hz @ 1080p. As is hdmi 1.4/2.0, but not 1.3 or lower.

But cables can be different too. Put a cheaper, older style standard speed hdmi cable on a hdmi 2.0 output/input and you'll get 60Hz, not 144Hz. Requires a high-speed cable, even though the hook up is physically the same. Works the same if using a dvi-d cable on dual link connections, you get short-changed. Need a dual link capable cable instead.

All 3 parts have to not only support the same format, but the same physical requirements and capabilities, or you get stuck with the lowest common denominator.

 

[ArtOdds]

Dvi is all different

I know there are 5 types of DVI:
DVI-I Dual and Single link
DVI-D Dual and Single link
DVI-A.
Are there several versions of them like HDMI 1.3, 1.4 and so on? I've never heard of such.

Dvi-d dual link is well capable of 144Hz @ 1080p.

Exactly! But not the DVI-D dual link port of the aforementioned mobo - and what it means? The mobo monufacturer has cut the feature or the integrated Radeon Vega 11 graphics is not capable of it?

 

[Third-Eye]

Interesting that nothing is said about 1920x1080 resolution - it gives some hope that HDMI monitors have better chances of 120Hz.

You motherboards HDMI cannot output higher than 60hz at 1080p. It might be able to do 85Hz at a lower resolution though. Whether or not your monitor can physically display 120hz on HDMI doesn't matter until you get a video card that can display higher refresh rate.

 

[Karadjgne]

Yes, hdmi, dvi, dp all have several iterations, each progressively more capable as the format gets better.

The motherboard itself has little to do with the hdmi capability. It's nothing more than a series of traces ending in a connector and starting at the APU. It's the APU itself that is limited in output as it isn't designed to be anything much more than a graphics quality representation, it'll handle 4k video easily, websites, Photoshop, anything basic. It was never intended for 144Hz, gaming or anything else graphically intense or extreme like that, that's why AMD sells gpus.

 

[ArtOdds]

It's the APU itself that is limited in output as it isn't designed to be anything much more than a graphics quality representation, it'll handle 4k video easily, websites, Photoshop, anything basic. It was never intended for 144Hz, gaming or anything else graphically intense or extreme like that...

Can we state it as a solid fact that AMD Ryzen 5 2400G built-in graphics (= Radeon Vega 11) cannot handle 120Hz or at least 100Hz refresh rate at 1080p?

 

[Karadjgne]

Depends on the usage. For video it'll do 240fps depending on the codec used, in CSGO at low settings it'll get 144fps+, but in more cpu/graphics demanding games like gta5 it gets 75fps and on CoD you'd be looking at closer to 30.



So with just plain windows, you'll be monitor/input limited in some things, codec limited in others, and graphics limited beyond that.

 

[ArtOdds]

I've noticed many times that there is confusion between refresh rate and fps. Those are different concepts, and refresh rate, I would say, is a leader while fps is a follower. For instance, if the DVI-D channel supports only 60Hz refresh rate what is the sense of having higher than 60 fps at the same resolution?!

Karadjgne, where did you get this table? It's interesting.

 

[Karadjgne]

Amd.

While theory would support your claim, the question I have is which fps. Frames are not even close to a static number, so you get 3 possibilities. Minimum frames, average frames, maximum frames. Which can vary greatly depending on exactly what's in pov. It's ideal to have minimum fps well over the refresh. It's not ideal to have maximum too high over refresh.

There are multiple issues associated with 1:1 Hz and Fps, whether it's 60 or 120 or 144 or even 165. V-sync being one of them. If a gpu struggles to get even 1 frame out, v-sync drops to 30, the frame gets repeated and you end up with stutters. If fps is too high, you run the risk of the screen not fully refreshing before another frame is shoved at it and you get artifacts known as tearing.

What you are dealing with personally is quite common. It's best noticed with a video camera aimed at a TV screen. You see the bars of the refresh moving up the screen. It's no different than many phosphorescent lighting that runs at a particular Hz and gives ppl headaches. It's a sensitivity to that or close frequency.