Asus expands its GeForce GT 710 graphics card arsenal with a new seventh variant.
Asus Resurrects GeForce GT 710 GPU With Four HDMI Ports : Read more
Asus Resurrects GeForce GT 710 GPU With Four HDMI Ports : Read more
Why does it have to be pcie 2.0? it's a pcie 3.0 device, but it will run just fine on pcie 2.0 because of the low memory bandwdith. Even if it was a 8gb gddr5 256bit device it would run on pcie 2.0, you would just reach the bandwidth threshold and bottleneck. It will also run fne on pcie 4.0 because pcie is backward compatible."Instead, it's an affordable option for users that are looking for a upgrade above integrated graphics or want to use multiple monitors simultaneously "
This is useful if you need 4 HDMI ports but as for gaming, current generation integrated from AMD and Intel are better.
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/...orce-GT-710-vs-Intel-HD-P630/3893vs2910vs3682
This is comparing the Geforce GT 710 to the integrated graphics in the Ryzen 5 3400G and the integrated graphics in an Intel i5-9500.
Radeon RX Vega 11
2102
GeForce GT 710
607
Intel HD P630
1727
Obviously if you had a Pentium 4 with Potato HD graphics the Geforce GT 710 would be an upgrade, assuming you found a motherboard with PCI-E 2.0 that was the same socket as the Pentium 4, but you have much bigger problems at this point.
Why does it have to be pcie 2.0? it's a pcie 3.0 device, but it will run just fine on pcie 2.0 because of the low memory bandwdith. Even if it was a 8gb gddr5 256bit device it would run on pcie 2.0, you would just reach the bandwidth threshold and bottleneck. It will also run fne on pcie 4.0 because pcie is backward compatible.
Yes, a GT710 is perfectly fine for driving 1080p digital signage across multiple TVs. You don't need super-powerful GPUs to push some video and static images with transitions.at invaliderror,
Why would you imagine "the primary market would be ...
across multiple large-format public displays"?
It says with 1 monitor you get 60hz, with 2 you get 30hz, do you get 15hz with 4?
So you think this thing will push multiple large-format public displays?
The point I was trying to make was if the motherboard doesn't have PCIe and instead has AGP you are out of luck but at that point you have bigger problems ... dead end architecture.
at invaliderror,
It says with 1 monitor you get 60hz, with 2 you get 30hz, do you get 15hz with 4?
So you think this thing will push multiple large-format public displays?
No fan, no intestinal fortitude.
One company I worked for over 10 years ago did digital signage software and was running dual displays on hardware a fraction as powerful as modern entry-level stuff. On many chipsets, hardware acceleration had to be disabled due to driver or hardware bugs when handling multiple video overlays. Modern entry-level IGPs would have been worth their weight in gold back then if they had more outputs.You don't need RTX Titans to drive the digital menu boards at McDonalds.
Display interface bandwidth has little to do with PCIe bandwidth. The display buffer doesn't traverse PCIe on its way to the monitor. Whether you're displaying a still image or gaming the bandwith required to drive the monitor(s) would be the same, but the PCIe traffic should be next to nothing for the former (which is why it typically downclocks to PCIe 1.0 speeds at idle) but much higher during the latter. Basically, a graphics card's ability to output X resolution at Y Hz is more or less independent of its PCIe interface.I'm assuming if they had to use chroma subsampling on PCIe 2.0 then there won't be enough bandwidth at PCIe 1.0 but lets let the math tell us!
[...]
Since GPUs feed outputs via the on-board frame buffer, 0Mbps of PCIe bandwidth is needed for static display refresh. PCIe traffic only happens when something needs to be updated in the frame buffer either by direct VRAM manipulation (MMIO) or GPU acceleration functions.Mathematically it is not possible to run 4 - 4k monitors at 30 hertz on anything short of a PCIe 2.0 x8 link, although a single 1280x720 monitor will work just fine.
Or really anyone who wants multiple displays on an office system. The graphics performance may be worse than modern integrated graphics (and not much better than Skylake's HD 530 from when the GT 710 came out over 4 years ago), but that's not too important if one is just running office applications.I'd imagine the primary market for those would be digital signage - running advertisements and other information across multiple large-format public displays.
For a modern system, you could just use a GT1030 to supplement the IGP's outputs instead. I'm guessing the GT710's other main selling point is legacy BIOS support for the ancient steaming piles likely still in use in digital signage today.Or really anyone who wants multiple displays on an office system.
It's not MEANT for gaming. It's also way cheaper than any other AMD or Nvidia card that does support 4 displays, and all those integrated graphics don't support 4 displays."Instead, it's an affordable option for users that are looking for a upgrade above integrated graphics or want to use multiple monitors simultaneously "
This is useful if you need 4 HDMI ports but as for gaming, current generation integrated from AMD and Intel are better.
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/...orce-GT-710-vs-Intel-HD-P630/3893vs2910vs3682
This is comparing the Geforce GT 710 to the integrated graphics in the Ryzen 5 3400G and the integrated graphics in an Intel i5-9500.
Radeon RX Vega 11
2102
GeForce GT 710
607
Intel HD P630
1727
Obviously if you had a Pentium 4 with Potato HD graphics the Geforce GT 710 would be an upgrade, assuming you found a motherboard with PCI-E 2.0 that was the same socket as the Pentium 4, but you have much bigger problems at this point.
It's nice having 4 HDMI ports on one card as well, which probably makes software configuration easier, especially if you want to use 4 displays in a video wall, and then a 5th primary display separate. Dell is in love with putting display ports on their Optiplex's while most monitors use HDMI requiring an adapter or a DP to HDMI cable.For a modern system, you could just use a GT1030 to supplement the IGP's outputs instead. I'm guessing the GT710's other main selling point is legacy BIOS support for the ancient steaming piles likely still in use in digital signage today.
As far as my own experience mixing VGA, HDMI, DVI and DP monitors goes, the multi-display setup is interface-agnostic. The only thing having the same interface for everything makes easier is not having to manage a bunch of different cables.It's nice having 4 HDMI ports on one card as well, which probably makes software configuration easier
I would not group VGA in with the 3 digital interfaces. If you had 3 digital signals and the 4th was VGA, you would easily be able to pick out the monitor using the analog signal. Otherwise, correct, as I said, having all 4 as HDMI means you don't need to use separate adapters or converting cables.As far as my own experience mixing VGA, HDMI, DVI and DP monitors goes, the multi-display setup is interface-agnostic. The only thing having the same interface for everything makes easier is not having to manage a bunch of different cables.
Except cables have nothing to do with software setup. My comment was specifically about you saying that same interface everywhere made SOFTWARE setup easier, my point was that most software is completely interface-agnostic so interfaces and cables make little to no difference. It makes HARDWARE setup easier by reducing the number of different parts you need to worry about.Otherwise, correct, as I said, having all 4 as HDMI means you don't need to use separate adapters or converting cables.
Except cables have nothing to do with software setup. My comment was specifically about you saying that same interface everywhere made SOFTWARE setup easier, my point was that most software is completely interface-agnostic so interfaces and cables make little to no difference. It makes HARDWARE setup easier by reducing the number of different parts you need to worry about.
But why spend $85-$100 on a GT 1030 when one just needs some additional display outputs? A number of GT 710 models are available for under $50, while GT 1030s start at nearly double the price. The GT 1030 is arguably priced a bit high to replace it for that task, at least for budget office systems.For a modern system, you could just use a GT1030 to supplement the IGP's outputs instead. I'm guessing the GT710's other main selling point is legacy BIOS support for the ancient steaming piles likely still in use in digital signage today.
I've been using multiple displays since it has been introduced, starting with a pair of ATI Rage 32s. Only problem I have ever had with it was with my Radeon HD5700 which wouldn't go to 3D clocks while the video decoder was active, which mean either I couldn't play videos while gaming or had to turn off hardware video decoding... and AMD never fixing that issue is why I decided to get a GTX1050 when AMD discontinued driver support and 1GB wasn't enough for WoW anymore.In the early days of Windows 10, even dual monitor configurations were completely broken on AMD hardware which is what finally pushed me to Nvidia, as the broken AMD drivers were just infuriating to deal with.
If you want to use a GPU in a production environment for a while, picking a GPU that has been on legacy status for years with support for the mobile variant discontinued altogether a year ago may not be such a good idea.But why spend $85-$100 on a GT 1030 when one just needs some additional display outputs?
The only time I've had to use the in-drivers multiple display setup was when I tried triple-display gaming where you need games to see only one large logical display and even that still does not care about the interfaces between the monitor and GPU aside from the logical display being limited to the worst display's specs or the GPU's output support limits which usually come before the interfaces' limits. The only case I can think of where this is necessary in a commercial setup would be for playing video across a display wall where you need output to every panel to be in sync.