• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano CrossFire

the54thvoid

Super Intoxicated Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
13,048 (2.39/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar B650 (wifi)
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB Kingston Fury
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX4070ti
Storage Seagate FireCuda 530 M.2 1TB / Samsumg 960 Pro M.2 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Asus Prime AP201
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply be quiet! Pure POwer M12 850w Gold (ATX3.0)
Software W10
TechPowerUp, you guys seriously have to take out of your test suite Project CARS, Wolfenstein: The New Order and World of Warcraft. This 3 games really damage the real performance index of the AMD cards. Just take a look at all other games and notice that the performance the Nano, Fury and Fury X cards presents do not agree with the final performance summary, and that is just because of those three aforementioned games.

No, AMD let their cards performance be damaged by not having the best DX11 hardware and/or driver solutions.
But, rejoice and flap thy red cape, future games that choose to go down certain feature paths in DX12 will seriously level the playing field. The new Deus Ex title is AMD sponsored and comes out in Feb. If it uses heavy Asynchronous shading, it'll be very good for Tonga, Hawaii and Fiji based cards.
But then, should I ask for that to be taken out of future benchmarks for being unfair to Nvidia?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,329 (0.81/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 32GB - 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600+16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB JUHOR / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, ONLY NVMes/ NVMes, SATA Storage / NVMe boot(Clover), SATA storage
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / CoolerMaster Elite 361 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10&Windows 11 / Windows 10
I think those games should stay there.

Looking at those 2-3 games and comparing the results with the other 20+ games, reveals the developers who will happily take someone's money and screw, in my opinion, their own customers by giving them an inferior product, while asking the full price. We should NOT protect those developers from hiding the benchmark results in their games. No. Those games should be there for everyone to see. And then put those developers in a black list and NEVER pay the full price for their games. Wait until those games come down to 1/4 of the original price and only then consider buying them.

Just my opinion of course, let those games there. Let everyone know who's games NOT to buy. Developers who happily screw AMD owners today, in a monopoly tomorrow will happily screw every owner of a "last gen" hardware in favor of the "next gen" hardware, so to force them to upgrade.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,826 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,371 (3.56/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
Thanks ks wiz, another great job. Keep up the good work!

That's another thing we should stop complaining about: it's not the GPU makers fault if a game does not run well on its GPU, its the game itself that was poorly built. The GPU and it's driver (or its arquiteture GCN) were already there for the game developers to make good use of it. Hardware companies should stop trying to make shitty games run well if it wasn't meant like that in the first place.

So if you can't just remove games that don't run well on AMD hardware, to balance things out, it would be fair to include games that run well on AMD hardware but not on Nvidia hardware.
Oy...

Just quoting this in hopes he reads his own post to see how asinine this suggestion actually is on so many levels.

@john, dirt rally runs terrier on amd hardware for some reason... it's an amd game too iirc.
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,169 (2.81/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
Great review but, I think I'll go with a second 390 considering two 390s cost about the same as a Nano. I'll hold off on first generation technology and let all the early adopters enjoy the high price tag, so people like me can live vicariously through the review but, still go with the cheaper option. Good job @W1zzard . You make me wish I had more money for computer components. :p
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,329 (0.81/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 32GB - 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600+16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB JUHOR / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, ONLY NVMes/ NVMes, SATA Storage / NVMe boot(Clover), SATA storage
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / CoolerMaster Elite 361 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10&Windows 11 / Windows 10
@john, dirt rally runs terrier on amd hardware for some reason... it's an amd game too iirc.
Dirt Rally Performance Review - GeForce GTX 970 Versus Radeon R9 390 - Page 4 of 4 - Legit ReviewsCodemasters: Dirt Rally Performance Benchmark
It doesn't look bad.

Even if we go before the introduction of 300 series
Dirt Rally: Ersteindruck des geistigen "Colin McRae 2015" mit Benchmarks von 20 Grafikkarten
the results are what someone would expect. Not every card from one manufacturer being faster than every card from the other manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
23 (0.01/day)
"Far Cry 4 is an interesting test. The R9 Nano CrossFire not only doesn't scale at 4K, but also sees a performance drop. In the same test, the dual-GPU R9 295X2 scales just fine. It goes to show that AMD still needs to refine drivers for the "Fiji" GPU"

AMD doesn't need to do anything. They have fixed poor performance in drivers 15.7.1 and 15.8. You see poor performance here because you guys used the 15.7 drivers, for whatever reason.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,826 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
AMD doesn't need to do anything. They have fixed poor performance in drivers 15.7.1 and 15.8. You see poor performance here because you guys used the 15.7 drivers, for whatever reason.
Help me please, what driver have I used for Nano?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
21 (0.01/day)
Processor Core I7 6700k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme4
Memory Corsair 2x4GB DDR4 2800
Video Card(s) MSI Fury X
Storage Samsung EVO 500GB
Power Supply Rosewill 650W 80+ Gold Modular
That's another thing we should stop complaining about: it's not the GPU makers fault if a game does not run well on its GPU, its the game itself that was poorly built. The GPU and it's driver were already there for the game developers to make good use of it. Hardware companies should stop trying to make shitty games run well if it wasn't meant like that in the first place.

So if you can't just remove games that don't run well on AMD hardware, to balance thing out, it would be fair to include games that run well on AMD hardware but not on Nvidia hardware.
No, AMD let their cards performance be damaged by not having the best DX11 hardware and/or driver solutions.
But, rejoice and flap thy red cape, future games that choose to go down certain feature paths in DX12 will seriously level the playing field. The new Deus Ex title is AMD sponsored and comes out in Feb. If it uses heavy Asynchronous shading, it'll be very good for Tonga, Hawaii and Fiji based cards.
But then, should I ask for that to be taken out of future benchmarks for being unfair to Nvidia?

No You don't, because it will be more balanced.
You see, what I'm trying to say is that Nvidia has a history of making games run bad on AMD cards, and probably that is whats going on with those 3 games.
Also Gameworks is a terrible thing for the gaming community...
 
Last edited:

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
27,826 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
From the review, "AMD R9 Nano: 15.201.1102"

Latest 15.8 driver is 15.201.1151 :). Far Cry 4 performance has been fixed.
Hmm .. I used the latest driver from AMD's FTP, recommended for R9 Nano reviews, marked as "September 1" build. As far as I know there is no newer driver for R9 Nano.

Your .1151 driver is from August 23, so older... amd-catalyst-15.8beta-64bit-win10-win8.1-win7-aug23.exe
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
34 (0.01/day)
Processor Intel Core i5-4690
Motherboard MSI H97 PC Mate
Video Card(s) PowerColor Red Devil RX 480 8GB
Case be quiet! Silent Base 800 Orange Window
  • Like
Reactions: nem

the54thvoid

Super Intoxicated Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
13,048 (2.39/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar B650 (wifi)
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB Kingston Fury
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX4070ti
Storage Seagate FireCuda 530 M.2 1TB / Samsumg 960 Pro M.2 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Asus Prime AP201
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply be quiet! Pure POwer M12 850w Gold (ATX3.0)
Software W10
From the review, "AMD R9 Nano: 15.201.1102"

Latest 15.8 driver is 15.201.1151 :). Far Cry 4 performance has been fixed.

Evidently not fixed. This is always going to be a problem with dual GPU cards.
 

soulsore

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
I think only one thing.. in 2015 it is no longer possible continue to publish reviews with a number and that's it, it's absurd. Should be published a chart with the trend of fps for the whole duration of the test.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
424 (0.07/day)
Maybe I missed it, but in your conclusion you neglected the power usage as a benefit of the Nanos in crossfire vs. Fury/Fury-X. Seems that performance @~350W would be a definite plus.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
3,285 (0.44/day)
Location
Sunny California
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte Aorus X870E Elite
Cooling Asus Ryujin II 360 EVA Edition
Memory 4x16GBs DDR5 6000MHz Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) Zotac RTX 4090 AMP Extreme Airo
Storage 2TB Samsung 990 Pro OS - 4TB Nextorage G Series Games - 8TBs WD Black Storage
Display(s) LG C2 OLED 42" 4K 120Hz HDR G-Sync enabled TV
Case Asus ROG Helios EVA Edition
Audio Device(s) Denon AVR-S910W - 7.1 Klipsch Dolby ATMOS Speaker Setup - Audeze Maxwell
Power Supply beQuiet Straight Power 12 1500W
Mouse Asus ROG Keris EVA Edition - Asus ROG Scabbard II EVA Edition
Keyboard Asus ROG Strix Scope EVA Edition
VR HMD Samsung Odyssey VR
Software Windows 11 Pro 64bit
A few cents? Architectural changes are more expensive than a few cents, get your informations right please. Is it not obvious to you, that they would have done it, would it have been a few cents.

Architectural changes? You do know how active display port to HDMI converters work, right? Those little dongles contain a tiny chip that functions by processing the DP video signal to convert it to an HDMI video signal, a very small piece of silicon no bigger than a few squared millimeters in size, and those cost how much to companies like AMD? Yeah you guessed that right, cents, no need to change anything in the actual architecture of the GPU to add a tiny video converter to the board to correctly support HDMI 2.0, but they decided to transfer that burden to the people who want to use this card in a home theater situation when plugged it to thousands of existing 4K TVs, so it seems like you should get your information right.

Also, I've been looking for this fabled Display port to HDMI 2.0 converter you say people have mentioned a "zillion times" it turns out such converters are not even available as of sept 2015, as found in numerous forum threads filled with people looking for this sought after piece of hardware:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/35-ca...-1-2-hdmi-2-0-adapter-there-manufacturer.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2258794/powering-hdmi-devices-mini-gpu.html

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1853226

There are some cheap adapters you can find online claiming to convert DP signal to HDMI 2.0, but the reviews for these adapters are filled with angry customers warning other people to stay away from these adapters, as they are HDMI 1.4 at most and thus, capable of only 30Hz at 4K.

One such adapter claims to be able to drive 4K at 60Hz, but it doesn't even list official HDMI 2.0 support, and some reviewers report this adapter uses a trick similar to what Nvidia did to enable 60Hz on early maxwell cards by downsampling the video signal to 8bit

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZA067MA/?tag=tec06d-20

So, if you know where to find this adapter you speak of, would you kindly share a link to the product page so the hundreds of people who are looking for it in hardware forums can purchase it?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,329 (0.81/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 32GB - 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600+16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB JUHOR / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, ONLY NVMes/ NVMes, SATA Storage / NVMe boot(Clover), SATA storage
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / CoolerMaster Elite 361 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10&Windows 11 / Windows 10
no need to change anything in the actual architecture of the GPU to add a tiny video converter to the board to correctly support HDMI 2.0
Probably they didn't wanted to add complexity on their board, or a third party chip or even increase the size of the board a "few squared millimeters" considering we do not talk about a big graphics card. In fact, in the case of Nano a "few squared millimeters" is a really big deal considering how they market the card.
So, their only option would probably be to upgrade the chip to support HDMI 2.0. They should have done that, they didn't. I don't know how much more it would have cost them in time and money to implement HDMI 2.0 support. I mean, OK, they just took two Tonga chips and glue them together, change the memory subsystem to support HBM and that's it? Not enough money/engineers/time to add HDMI 2.0 support? Did they had to change significant part of the chip's architecture to support HDMI 2.0?
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.46/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
They need to make an XL-ITX board for crossfire Nanos with matching power supply. XD


If you're going to blow $650-1300 on graphics cards, there's a good chance you can afford a DisplayPort TV/monitor too. HDMI 2.0 can't do 4K without cutting corners; DisplayPort can. I think that's the message AMD is trying to send by excluding HDMI 2.0.

There has to be a technical reason why DisplayPort to HDMI 2.0 converters don't exist. I wish I knew it.

Edit: It sounds like DP->HDMI 2.0 converters should becoming by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
101 (0.03/day)
AMD are going release a adapter that solves the HDMI 2.0 issue, i would of though it be connected though the DP connecters.

Using an adapter on a plus 600 dollar gpu? No thank you if I'm spending good money I want my tech to be high tech
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,259 (4.46/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse Nixeus REVEL-X
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
I doubt that. Active DisplayPort converters are not cheap. AMD can't afford to be handing them out and they really have no reason to start selling them either (other companies like Startech, Monoprice, and Belkin will get all over that).
 

AsRock

TPU addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
19,082 (3.00/day)
Location
UK\USA
Using an adapter on a plus 600 dollar gpu? No thank you if I'm spending good money I want my tech to be high tech

I don't disagree with you, was just saying that their will be.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
3,881 (0.85/day)
Using an adapter on a plus 600 dollar gpu? No thank you if I'm spending good money I want my tech to be high tech

If it was "high tech". Would you not prefer DisplayPort ?

HDMI FAQ
4k@60hz 10-bit 4:2:0

DisplayPort FAQ

4k@60 10-bit 4:4:4
DisplayPort FAQ said:
DisplayPort 1.2a systems today can support 4K displays at 60Hz refresh and full 30-bit 4:4:4 color (non-chroma subsampled).

You can always channel your diatribe towards the non-inclusion from both GPU vendors of DisplayPort 1.3 which was passed last year . At least you'd be advocating for a superior standard not going backward for convenience.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
21 (0.01/day)
Processor Core I7 6700k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme4
Memory Corsair 2x4GB DDR4 2800
Video Card(s) MSI Fury X
Storage Samsung EVO 500GB
Power Supply Rosewill 650W 80+ Gold Modular
If it was "high tech". Would you not prefer DisplayPort ?

HDMI FAQ
4k@60hz 10-bit 4:2:0

DisplayPort FAQ

4k@60 10-bit 4:4:4


You can always channel your diatribe towards the non-inclusion of DisplayPort 1.3 which was passed last year from both GPU vendors. At least you'd be advocating for a superior standard not going backward for convenience.
Absolutely! Don't know why people keep complaining about. DisplayPort is a must for 4K monitors...
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,169 (2.81/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
If it was "high tech". Would you not prefer DisplayPort ?

HDMI FAQ
4k@60hz 10-bit 4:2:0

DisplayPort FAQ

4k@60 10-bit 4:4:4


You can always channel your diatribe towards the non-inclusion from both GPU vendors of DisplayPort 1.3 which was passed last year . At least you'd be advocating for a superior standard not going backward for convenience.
Forget the fact that the actual connector for HDMI is crap with respect to build quality and longevity. DP is a much more rigid design than HDMI. A clip to hold a connector in and an L shaped (keyed,) internal connector? You would think that after using screws with HDMI and VGA that they would realize that there is a need to hold cables in place and for the connector to be rigid and HDMI fails in that respect. The only benefit of HDMI is convenience because it has weaseled its way on to just about every device you can find.

As I understand it though, 4:4:4 can look a lot nicer than 4:2:0 although I've only heard and read something about it once.
 
Top