[SOLVED] "No video signal" on new Ryzen build.

[MajorMarmot]

I'm sorry for bothering you with a type of question that you receive all the time, I have already successfully assembled 3 different computers by myself on the last 7 years (Intel ones), and I feel ashamed having to ask for help... but this new rig just bested me!

The CPU fan starts when I press the power button, all LED lights shine as expected, and even the CD drive runs, but I get "no video signal" from the monitor.

GPU: No GPU
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600
MoBo: Gigabyte mATX GA-A320M-H
Ram: 1 x HyperX Fury DDR4 HX426C16FB3/8
HDD: WD 1TB SATA III WD10EZEX
Chassis: Acteck Delta
PSU: 500W Acteck AC-925235-1 (came with the chassis)

What I have already tried:

Change HDMI cable
Change monitor and HDMI cable
Change cable and port to DVI
Change Ram port
Disconnect and reconnect everything

I really don't know what to do. The computer starts but the monitor gets no signal, and the culprit doesn't seem to be either the cable, the monitor or the video port. It might be something really complex, or something really dumb (I hope) that I just don't understand. But this goes beyond me. Please , help!

 

[DSzymborski]

You get no video signal because you have no signal. The video outputs on the motherboard only work if you're using a Ryzen APU, which means one of the ones with a G in the name (2200G, 2400G, 3400G). The other Ryzen CPUs have no integrated graphics and motherboards having their own integrated graphics is mostly an ancient thing at this point. In other words, this is the same result as trying to start a car missing its engine!

Your options are to buy a Ryzen APU and return the 2600 (make sure, from Gigabyte's support page for this motherboard, it's an APU that doesn't require a BIOS update to run on this motherboard) or to buy a GPU. And if you do buy a GPU, you really need to replace the PSU; it's the lowest tier of dodgy junk, a fake 500W PSU that is only actually a 200W in any post-Pentium III sense. I'd probably replace it anyway given that 99% of PSUs included in cases are invariably godawful fire hazards.

 

[MajorMarmot]

I had no idea that CPU's without integrated graphics were a thing. Thank you very much!

I have an old GPU lying around that I could try, but first I'll follow your advice and change the PSU.

 

[DSzymborski]

I had no idea that CPU's without integrated graphics were a thing. Thank you very much!

I have an old GPU lying around that I could try, but first I'll follow your advice and change the PSU.

If you go back about 15 years, integrated graphics on motherboards were common, but Intel moved their graphics to the CPU itself in 2010 in order to have better/faster interactions between the integrated GPU and CPU. Since then, most Intel CPUs have had a recent generation of Intel HD graphics, though there have typically been a few CPUs released in most generations that don't have any integrated graphics, which can frequently save you $20 or so (and sometimes not at all!). Intel denotes these nowadays with an F in the name, for example the i5-9400F does not have integrated graphics.

AMD's approach has been slightly different. Integrated graphics perform much faster when integrated with the CPU than the chipset, so AMD has approached it as including integrated graphics for entry-level rigs and those not needing significant GOY resources. All those A6/A8/A10 APUs from the mid 2010s had better integrated graphics than the Intel CPUs (but worse CPU performance). AMD doesn't include graphics on their higher-end CPUs.