I just upgraded my hardware. MoBo is Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H. I followed the instructions in the manual to enable Dual Graphics, but testing does not confirm the gains expected on the BIOS enablements.
You need to be using Dual channel RAM of 1833+ or higher in your system.
I just upgraded my RAM too, from 2 x 4GB 1600 mHz DDR3 RAM to 2 x 8GB 2133 mHz DDR3 RAM. While I did successfully find the place to change things in the BIOS to get my memory speed up, I am presently about a quarter of the way through the second part of the download of the software that I am preparing to run, with many hours to go on this part alone, so I can't effectively get to my BIOS right now to try to address the low clock speeds indicated in the graphic I attached. I remember that when I unlocked the memory clock from the default the BIOS did indicate that it had changed the multiplier to go with the correctly detected speed capacity of the new memory, but the actual speed shown was still 1333. My Gigabyte MoBo is supposed to be capable of supporting memory up to 2133 mHz, 2400 if overclocked, but the A10 7800 Kaveri APU isn't supposed to be overclocked, and I have no such plans.
I'm also having trouble getting into the AMD Forum right now and I don't know why, hence my reply by email instead of posting my reply to the Forum.
Okay, two out of three large downloads complete plus some small stuff, one large, troublesome download to go, not your problem. Have checked the BIOS and the actual speed now corresponds to the memory clock multiplier, my RAM is now running at 2133 mHz. The AMD RADEON SETTINGS "Hardware AMD Radeon(TM) R7 Graphics (Disabled)" tab message persists, as do the "Core Clock 720 MHz" and "Memory Clock 1066 MHz" notes to go with it, and the "Core Clock 1000 MHz" and "Memory Clock 800 MHz" notes to go with the "Hardware AMD Radeon R7 250 Series (Primary)" tab. Windows thinks I have the latest driver. The AMD update utility thinks there may be one later, but it doesn't seem to work. The driver disk that came with the R7 250 graphics card didn't completely install correctly, but everything seemed to work anyway, at least until I started benchmarking and digging for numbers. Is the "Disabled" label in error? Do all the clocks have to match in order for Dual Graphics to work? I have not yet found a way to change the speed on any of these clocks, not in AMD RADEON SETTINGS, not in the Windows Control Panel, and not in the BIOS.
Please advise, thank you very much
im having the same issue with mine my memory is at 1866mhz ddr 3 i dont get the crossfire button like amd says ive manually changed the igfx card to force with 2gb. ive had it at auto. still dont get the option for crossfire.
win 7 64 bit
AMD A10 7890K A-Series APU with Radeon R7 Graphics
Kingston fury x 1866mhz ddr3 8gb x2 16gb total
So, you think that AMD Dual Graphics is the same as CrossFireX?
It looks like you have the same problem that I do though; in your Radeon Settings control it also indicates that your R7 250 Card is Primary and that your A10 7890 GPU cores are Disabled.
Same problem, how do we fix it?
Its essentially a crossfire but and does call it dual graphics. I have yet to figure it out. I have mirrored my settings for my apu and gpu didn't work I've tried igfx as primary didn't work swapped memory out for dif. Didn't work under locked my memory nope new drivers uninstalled then reinstalled them. Idk what else to do I even moved slots of the memory. I have my igfx set to force and 2gb to mirror my gpu. I did put another forum post up. I can't get the d graphics button to show up. And whichever I have plugged into my monitor is the one that isn't disabled. I bought this card so I could benefit from using the apu. I could have just bought a better card and said screw it but now I have it and I'm getting frustrated lol. And site is 0 help on figuring it out and so far I haven't found a smoking gun on the forums
As far as I can tell, Dual Graphics and CrossFireX were not really the same in the beginning, as most video cards required a CrossFire Bridge, a ribbon cable, that joined the two front edge terminals on the cards, but AMD has since gotten around this. Dual Graphics was between a graphics card and the GPU cores of an APU. Maybe they are the same thing now, not sure. So, you had whichever GPU your monitor was not plugged in to show as "Disabled". I had not thought to try that. That seems to work for me too, so maybe it is running in a Dual Graphic mode. I know that my benchmark results have improved, but that may be due to my memory upgrade instead. Unfortunately, my performance results have not improved enough. I'd been hoping that adding another R7 in parallel would make my system equivalent to an AMD 7700 series at least, and now that I have my target software installed and can test it, I can confirm that my results are not yet acceptable. It seems that no matter what I do, in order to suit my purposes two-thirds of my APU cores are destined to go dark. Would I have been as well or better off to build my machine around an Athlon II x4 or an i5? At least I'm still within the 30-day period in which to return the card. I must also consider the possibility that my CPU performance isn't good enough. What's the upgrade path on my FM2+ socket platform? Back when it started, it seemed as if it was being seen as running with a software-controlled dividing line with shared memory-thing, that the 4CPU/8GPU division could be changed in the future to 6/6 or 8/4 to meet my needs, or is that all hopeless 'cause nobody's ever gonna write that software? What else can I get that will fit a FM2+ socket that will do enough better than an A10? Maybe this doesn't belong in the "Graphics" Forum because it's about to get CPU intensive, but the publisher of my software calls for an Intel i5 2500 minimum, and recommends an i5 4590. No AMD CPU equivalent is listed. Will anything available on my platform satisfy or approximate this specification, or is it beyond the end of my upgrade path?
Well I don't think they will be making new versions for our board since the new architecture will be out early next year I got my you for about 35$ so I'm not out much but I still want the dial graphics on theory no matter which card u use ur frame rate ect should be the same. 2 cards as one. I'm not 100% sure that's true but makes sense. And I have an 8 fps difference just switching my cord. I would assume your processor is ok my a10 7890 is a 4 core 4.1ghz fm2+. It loads faster than my 8 core 4.3ghz but tech is a lot newer on fm2 than fx. I still haven't figured out how to enable dual graphics tried everything i can think of maybe something stupid to do with our board wish could just get amd to look at it. I'm pretty sure an r7 is better than hd7700. Hd were the old cards then and went to r series or maybe the r7 is the same as he 7k series just dif bit size
Nice that you got your R7 card for $35, mine was about twice that, undoubtedly some of it the additional RAM. You got a gain by just switching cords; I'd like to know which cord you switched from what to what else. Your A10 7890 is faster than my A10 7800 too, which is running at 3.5 gHz. So, I did some additional benchmarking, and I'm pretty sure my GPU's can't see each other very well, and are not running in Dual Graphics mode.
I used the Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0, same settings all around:
Monitor plugged into the Mobo; Score = 819, 32.5 FPS, 14.4 Low, 58.2 High,
Monitor plugged into R7 250 card; Score = 831, 33.0 FPS, 16.0 Low, 61.2 High, (about a 1.5% gain in score)
Then I _removed_ the R7 250 card from the machine and repeated the test:
Score = 818, 32.5 FPS, 15.1 Low, 58.8 High.
What this means: Both the High and Low FPS values were higher without the R7 250 card in the machine, but the score was lower by about a tenth of a percent, which means that the average frame rate was lower by a trivial amount, possibly not even enough to be repeatable at all. There is no gain from this Dual Graphics processing attempt, and I strongly suspect that the two GPU's are pulling matching loads in parallel, unable to see each other at all. All of the performance gains that I've seen so far have really only come from the memory upgrade.
Aside from response a week ago from amdpete on Dual Channel RAM and its required speed, can we tell if any AMD people are even looking at what we're saying here? I find this very disheartening. I can't even tell if the problem is that I need a more powerful CPU to start with, but the game I added is basically unplayable at this point, and I have to make this thing work. When the producers Kickstarted this project in November of 2013, nobody knew what the system requirements would ultimately be. Over the interval, everybody guessed low. When I built this machine about a year and a quarter ago, I thought I had it covered with room to grow. Now, instead of being in the crowd of those who can upgrade economically to handle the difference, it's starting to look like I'm one of the old-timers who will need to build a new rig. I mean, can I just switch out my MoBo with APU + R7 250 package and plug my RAM + drives into a new MoBo with an Intel CPU + nVidia graphics card and expect the drives, their Win7 OS, applications and data to all run same or better, or will differences in AMD vs Intel machine code mean that a bunch of software won't run and must be reinstalled?
i didnt benchmark mine. i just play ark survival. so i loaded the game sat in one place unplugged my hdmi from my r7 and into igfx n checked fps if i remember right was 17 on ifgx and 24 on r7. quality still inst great but i can turn it up a little bit and still be ok. thats the only way i tested it so i know the dual graphics isnt enable or it should be the same regardless what card i use if they are pairing together. im lost as to what to do. im swapped out memory ive reclocked everything uninstalled reinstalled drivers about 8 times reset bios 2 or 3 times. read the motherboard book watched videos of people just plugging it in and bam the buttons there.. *** why is it so difficult. if u upgrade i would just go with zen when they release it. the apu is nice the processor is fast but the igfx isnt great. i thought pariring would be beneficial since its technically my server and my sons computer. but i could have spent less on the processor and 50$ more on a graphics card and had a pretty good rig with less headache. so idk. depends on wdhat you are doing. i am impressed with the quad core in the apu. runs very well n cool with amd wraith cooler very impressed with it.
I used the newegg chat system built in to their website, (after all, they sold me all of my hardware), and they gave me the toll-free number for AMD tech support. Strangely enough, AMD tech support does not have access to this forum. Whatever. The AMD guy had me go to techpowerup.com and download TechPowerUp GPU-Z v1.10.0, which I then ran. He told me that I had a Cape Verde chip in my R7 250, with 512 Shader Cores, and my A10 7800 Kaveri APU would only Dual Process with an Oland chip R7 250 with 384 Shader Cores.
The card goes back. In the benchmark tests, the i5 2500, (listed as minimum requirement for my software), tested out significantly higher than my A10 7800, and the recommended i5 4590 did not appear to have an AMD equal. It looks like I'll still have to choose between an Intel i5 MoBo upgrade and an AMD FX 8350 or higher in order to run my game. I may well go with AMD, even if it's a bit more expensive, both as a matter of principle, (I am philosophically opposed to some of Intel's unfair business practices), and out of the hope that I can simply plug my drives into it and get it to run, (as opposed to formatting everything that I have and re-installing Win 7 and all applications from scratch. I may still have to do that anyway). If you check this on yours it might answer the issue for you. When I finally got to the right people in real time they were most helpful.
Finally got the correct card, an XFX R7 250 with 2GB RAM, Oland chip. My Radeon Settings utility tells me that the APU graphics are linked, and that the graphics card is running R7 200 Dual Graphics (Primary). My benchmark tests show that I have over a 72% improvement beyond the Cape Verde card which would not Dual Process my video, and if I compare benchmarks with what I got before the memory upgrade, the improvement is over 273% from that. Perhaps more importantly, my game is performing a lot better than before, and I don't think I'll need to upgrade the motherboard at this time.
A reason that I mention the HD 7700 card is that it is listed by the game publisher as a minimum acceptable graphics card to run the game. A reason why I felt the need to run dual R7 graphics is because the HD 7700 is listed somewhere as having twice the pixel fill rate of a R7 250. Now, I'm looking for the button that I use to label this one "Solved" and I don't see it. For my situation I feel that this qualifies.
mine was the same issue cape verse vs oland Msi changed the gpu core but left the card label as 250 instead of 250x needless to say amd resolved quick and Msi told me not their problem so to bad. I will never purchase their stuff anymore. Besides if you can't trust what you are buying because they are miss labeling cards that's a big issue cost compatibility all for a useless card essentially. can't return it because a substantial restocking fee. And my lady threw the box away. Glad u got yours up and running :-)
Retrieving data ...