PDA

View Full Version : NVIDIA Optimus & Hybrid Graphics problem


AtteHujanen
10-18-11, 04:36 AM
I have Asus U36SD, which has the Intel HD Graphics 3000 chip as an integrated solution and then the NVIDIAŽ GeForceŽ GT 520M with 1GB DDR3 VRAM as an additional GPU. I get that the whole Optimus idea is to run all hardcore stuff on nVidia chip and everything else ("office use") on the Intel chip to save battery. I can dig that.

The problem is that my office use is quite hardcore: I need to run additional display desktop on 2560x1440, but I can't get Optimus to switch to nVidia GPU for the other desktop. The intel chip can only squeeze out a 1920x1080 resolution, which is not native to this panel and thus looks pretty bad.

My Googlin' around has led me to the conclusion that Optimus is simply so bad of a technology that it does not have support to run ONLY THE DESKTOP, and not any specified programs?

My specs:

Asus U36SD
NVIDIAŽ GeForceŽ GT 520M with 1GB DDR3 VRAM
IntelŽ HD Graphics 3000
HDMI 1.4 connection with Supra highspeed cable
Fujitsu P27T-6 Panel
Win 7

I've installed both ASUS specified drivers and NVIDIA & Intel seperate drivers (latest), nothing works.

Problem in a nutshell:

I want to get the nVidia GPU to run my additional desktop, but the system only offers Intel chip for that, which can not reach 2560x1440

grey_1
10-18-11, 07:31 AM
As far as I know running off the NV card is your only option, and if your bios doesn't have the option to disable the Intel HD you're out of luck. I decided to shy away from optimus on my last laptop purchase due to it's lack of flexibility. I would hope that changes in the future.

I could be wrong, but after a lot of googling over the last year I don't think so. Best of luck with it, maybe someone around here has something better to offer for solutions.

frenchy2k1
10-18-11, 01:58 PM
Have you tried using intel resolution wizard?
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/Unable_to_Select_Larger_Display_Mode.htm

Because according to Intel, their HD3000 can drive up to 2550x1600:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-processor-graphics/

Maybe HDMI does not support it on your laptop:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/326492-33-intel-3000-maximum-display-resolution

AtteHujanen
10-19-11, 03:32 AM
Intel also claims that I would be able to run 2560x1600 through VGA, which is not happening either. Asus claims that my laptop has HDMI 1.4, which would support up to 4096x2160 resolution according to the spec. I don't have display port on my laptop so I'm out of luck on that part.

When I try to force anything more than 1920x1080 out of the Intel chip, it says that the suggested resolution exceeds bandwith. Maybe it can run on 2560x1600 if the integrated display on my laptop is turned off, but that is not really an option..

ViN86
10-19-11, 09:46 AM
Intel also claims that I would be able to run 2560x1600 through VGA, which is not happening either. Asus claims that my laptop has HDMI 1.4, which would support up to 4096x2160 resolution according to the spec. I don't have display port on my laptop so I'm out of luck on that part.

When I try to force anything more than 1920x1080 out of the Intel chip, it says that the suggested resolution exceeds bandwith. Maybe it can run on 2560x1600 if the integrated display on my laptop is turned off, but that is not really an option..

Really? Because I've never seen anyone claim that you can run 2560x1600 on VGA. Typically the maximum resolutions used for VGA are 2048x something. Technically, you can obtain that resolution, but with an analog signal the quality is usually pretty crappy. Every monitor I have seen with 2560x1600 uses a dual link DVI or Displayport.

Also, I don't understand why you would want to run the desktop on the NVIDIA card. My laptop has Optimus as well, and in my NVIDIA control panel I can pick which applications use the NVIDIA GPU and I can set the global setting, so that everything uses one or the other GPU. The HD3000 should be more than sufficient to run a desktop. The same isn't true for graphics intensive applications.

grey_1
10-19-11, 10:50 AM
Really? Because I've never seen anyone claim that you can run 2560x1600 on VGA. Typically the maximum resolutions used for VGA are 2048x something. Technically, you can obtain that resolution, but with an analog signal the quality is usually pretty crappy. Every monitor I have seen with 2560x1600 uses a dual link DVI or Displayport.

Also, I don't understand why you would want to run the desktop on the NVIDIA card. My laptop has Optimus as well, and in my NVIDIA control panel I can pick which applications use the NVIDIA GPU and I can set the global setting, so that everything uses one or the other GPU. The HD3000 should be more than sufficient to run a desktop. The same isn't true for graphics intensive applications.

He's using 2 displays though. If I got him correctly he wants that res off the NV card and the lower res off the HD 3000, or both monitors off of one or the other, which the NV would handle better, but even when selected as the preferred card it only activates with certain apps, but not desktop only.

ViN86
10-19-11, 12:28 PM
He's using 2 displays though. If I got him correctly he wants that res off the NV card and the lower res off the HD 3000, or both monitors off of one or the other, which the NV would handle better, but even when selected as the preferred card it only activates with certain apps, but not desktop only.

My point was that every display I've seen at that resolution doesn't even have a VGA port. Also, most cards only support up to 2048x2048 over VGA. So I doubt the claim that Intel said he could do 2560x1600 over VGA.

The global setting should allow him to select the NVIDIA card for all output. There's no point in even using the HD3000 unless you're trying to save power. The dedicated card can handle everything in 2D just fine.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9973/ncp1.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/ncp1.jpg/)

Honestly this problem sounds like a connectivity problem instead of a GPU problem. The monitor specs say it supports HDMI in. Have you tried it yet? You can convert HDMI to Displayport if necessary.

Also, you should be able to disable the HD3000 in your BIOS, which will force the machine to use the NVIDIA card.

grey_1
10-19-11, 12:49 PM
My point was that every display I've seen at that resolution doesn't even have a VGA port. Also, most cards only support up to 2048x2048 over VGA. So I doubt the claim that Intel said he could do 2560x1600 over VGA.

The global setting should allow him to select the NVIDIA card for all output. There's no point in even using the HD3000 unless you're trying to save power. The dedicated card can handle everything in 2D just fine.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9973/ncp1.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/ncp1.jpg/)

Honestly this problem sounds like a connectivity problem instead of a GPU problem. The monitor specs say it supports HDMI in. Have you tried it yet? You can convert HDMI to Displayport if necessary.

Also, you should be able to disable the HD3000 in your BIOS, which will force the machine to use the NVIDIA card.

Even for desktop only? I think that's the issue he's having, not being able to run DT only on the higher res.

Not sure, he'll have to clarify.

ViN86
10-19-11, 12:49 PM
From the monitor's tech specs: https://globalsp.ts.fujitsu.com/dmsp/docs/ds-display-p27t-6-ips.pdf

2560 x 1600 pixel via DisplayPort and Dual Link DVI, 1920 x 1200 pixel, 1680 x 1050 pixel, 1600 x 1200 pixel, 1400 x 900 pixel, 1280 x 800 pixel, 1280 x 768 pixel, 1024 x 768 pixel, 800 x 600 pixel, 640 x 480 pixel

Your monitor doesn't support VGA at that resolution. Also, it seems that converting HDMI to DisplayPort or Dual Link DVI isn't likely. Check out this thread: http://forum.gefen.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10001

The OP is in the same predicament you are. He only has HDMI out. There is an HDMI 1.4 to DisplayPort device available, but they don't list a price, and these types of converters are very expensive (this model is about $500, and I can't guarantee it will work, in all honesty it probably won't). http://www.kramerelectronics.com/products/model.asp?pid=1213

So once again, it's not NVIDIA Optimus's problem, it's a connectivity issue.

frenchy2k1
10-19-11, 01:54 PM
@ViN86:
he never said his monitor would use the VGA port, just that intel claims their chip could go that high on VGA. This is actually quite possible, as VGA will allow for very low refresh rates (which would give a very crappy image quality and horrible lag).

I agree with your assessment of connectivity problem though.

He is saying that his monitor should support the native resolution through HDMI as both laptop, monitor and cable are rated HDMI 1.4. Don't know where things are going wrong...

ViN86
10-19-11, 02:07 PM
@ViN86:
he never said his monitor would use the VGA port, just that intel claims their chip could go that high on VGA. This is actually quite possible, as VGA will allow for very low refresh rates (which would give a very crappy image quality and horrible lag).

Right, that's what I meant by the following.

Technically, you can obtain that resolution, but with an analog signal the quality is usually pretty crappy.

I was reading about it online. You can do it via VGA at the cost of quality. But the monitor doesn't support that resolution via VGA anyways. But from experience, the maximum real-world resolution people use over VGA is 1920x1200 (some use 2048 x something as well in 4:3 aspect ratios).

I agree with your assessment of connectivity problem though.

He is saying that his monitor should support the native resolution through HDMI as both laptop, monitor and cable are rated HDMI 1.4. Don't know where things are going wrong...

Things are going wrong because you need a Dual Link DVI or DisplayPort connector to access the 2560x1600 resolution on the monitor. Apparently the monitor isn't HDMI 1.4 compliant or else it would accept that resolution via HDMI. But the tech specs clearly state that 2560x1600 is only obtainable via Dual Link DVI or DisplayPort.

frenchy2k1
10-20-11, 11:59 AM
Actually, the 2560x1600 is *interpolated* as the native resolution is 2560x1440. The native resolution can be displayed using HDMI (according to the manual).
Only the higher interpolated res needs the dual link DVI.

ViN86
10-20-11, 03:01 PM
Actually, the 2560x1600 is *interpolated* as the native resolution is 2560x1440. The native resolution can be displayed using HDMI (according to the manual).
Only the higher interpolated res needs the dual link DVI.

Oh good catch, I didn't see that. Right so he should be able to get the native resolution using HDMI...

So a simple HDMI cable should do it. If the OP ever returns, maybe we can find out if he tried that. It sounds like he's only tried VGA.

AtteHujanen
10-26-11, 06:46 AM
Oh good catch, I didn't see that. Right so he should be able to get the native resolution using HDMI...

So a simple HDMI cable should do it. If the OP ever returns, maybe we can find out if he tried that. It sounds like he's only tried VGA.

First of all, thanks for the active help and support! This is something I haven't confronted in all of the forums I've been browsing and posting for help. Secondly sorry for tuning out just as the discussion got active ;)

As you've already discussed, I've found evidence that my additional panel can be run at 2560x1440 through HDMI 1.4 cabel. I have that.

I've connected my laptop (which also should have HDMI 1.4 output) to the display via HDMI cabel that should be 1.4 according to the local Hi-Fi store (1,5m meter cost me 55 USD so better be good).

So my problem is that I have everything set up in theory, but the Intel chip does not allow to even try the custom resolution of 2560x1440 (just says "exceeds bandwith"), since windows desktop management tool only recommends up to 1920x1080 AND I can't switch the NVIDIA chip to run the whole desktop even though I've put it as a global rule on everything.

Also my BIOS does not appear to have a disabling option for the Intel chip.

grey_1
10-26-11, 07:21 AM
This may be a really stupid question, so forgive me please, but windows management isn't set to "hide resolutions this monitor cannot support", is it?

I'm just wondering if win isn't recognizing what your monitor can support properly.

ViN86
10-26-11, 09:01 PM
First of all, thanks for the active help and support! This is something I haven't confronted in all of the forums I've been browsing and posting for help. Secondly sorry for tuning out just as the discussion got active ;)

As you've already discussed, I've found evidence that my additional panel can be run at 2560x1440 through HDMI 1.4 cabel. I have that.

I've connected my laptop (which also should have HDMI 1.4 output) to the display via HDMI cabel that should be 1.4 according to the local Hi-Fi store (1,5m meter cost me 55 USD so better be good).

So my problem is that I have everything set up in theory, but the Intel chip does not allow to even try the custom resolution of 2560x1440 (just says "exceeds bandwith"), since windows desktop management tool only recommends up to 1920x1080 AND I can't switch the NVIDIA chip to run the whole desktop even though I've put it as a global rule on everything.

Also my BIOS does not appear to have a disabling option for the Intel chip.
Glad you came back. I was starting to think you forgot and we'd never get resolution. :lol:

That's strange you can't disable the Intel chip in BIOS. Have you tried contacting the vendor? Also, have you updated the BIOS? (is there a newer version?)