If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote:
A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x. It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like 640x480 or 800x600. The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered different), thus this statement is completely false. The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games, but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without loosing performance if such pci cards would exist). Roland |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Rob Stow wrote: A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x. It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like 640x480 or 800x600. The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered different), thus this statement is completely false. Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some gaming benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version of that card in that same machine: same GPU running at the same clock, same type and amount of RAM at the same speed. Note that the benchmarks are very nearly identical at low resolutions, but the AGP card edges ahead at higher resolutions. The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI comparison was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of RAM on the card. How then do you explain that the PCI version of the card keeps up with the AGP version until higher resolutions are reached ? (high-end graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games, but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without loosing performance if such pci cards would exist). Try out a Quadro 400 NVS. For best results you apparently need to use it in a 64 bit/66 MHz slot instead of just a 32 bit/33 MHz slot. I saw someone demo one of those in Calgary last fall. He did a few CAD/rendering demonstrations and it seemed pretty impressive to me. Roland |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr Makley wrote in news:94C781C1ACFA131E75@
130.133.1.4: Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card for AGP? They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr Makley wrote in news:94C797CE8FC2031E75@
130.133.1.4: Although OCI graphics cards may be going up in price --- is that from a base price which is lower or highter that the price of AGP graphics cards? They were still cheaper about 2 or so years ago and they were equal about last year due to supply. At this point in time I would say that most cards in the pci version will cost more than the equivilant AGP version due to limited supply. Of course there will always be places trying to get rid of stock. i.e. http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/cp...brand_pny.html PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 PCI (128 MB) = 69 pounds PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 Ultra AGP (128 MB) = 60 pounds Pine XFX MX 400 PCI (64 MB) = 36 pounds Pine XFX MX 400 AGP (64 MB) = 27 pounds |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote:
The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered different), thus this statement is completely false. Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some gaming benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version of that card in that same machine: same GPU running at the same clock, same type and amount of RAM at the same speed. Note that the benchmarks are very nearly identical at low resolutions, but the AGP card edges ahead at higher resolutions. This is simply not true at all. If you did test this, you likely didn't use identical cards - for instance you might have got the 64bit memory interface version of the 9200 (afaik only hercules produces a 128bit pci version) which is only about half as fast (and at lower resolutions could still keep up if your game is cpu limited). There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and resolution just doesn't matter. Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those low-end cards). You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI comparison was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of RAM on the card. How then do you explain that the PCI version of the card keeps up with the AGP version until higher resolutions are reached ? Since it's just not true, I don't need an explanation ;-) Roland |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and resolution just doesn't matter. Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those low-end cards). Here's a recent test, and you can actually see that the difference gets SMALLER between pci and agp with higher resolution (which actually is expected, since the same amount of geometry data is transfered, but the card has to work harder thus lower framerates, and the difference is quite small to begin with at 800x600 and non-existant at higher resolutions (compare the club3d lp and sapphire pci 64MB card, those have same clocks, both 64bit memory interface, though the pci card has only 64MB while the agp card has 128MB). http://www.ati-news.de/HTML/Berichte...I-Seite5.shtml (btw forget the aquamark results, this test definitely penalizes cards with less ram, the 3dmark01 results though show that there is indeed a difference between pci and agp cards - but again, the difference does not grow with higher resolution). Roland |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Psi-Tau Paladin wrote:
Piotr Makley wrote in news:94C781C1ACFA131E75@ 130.133.1.4: Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card for AGP? They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore. It depends on the card. Most PCI cards *are* more expensive than the AGP version of the same card, but for the Radeon 9200 the prices are about the same. I suspect the reason is that the PCI version of the Radeon 9200 is selling like hotcakes. Hence better economies of scale come into play for the manufacturer and their is more competition among the vendors. This card is selling *very* well to people who have integrated video and no AGP slot. It is also a good card for people who already have a dual monitor AGP card and want a cheap upgrade to a quad-display system. The PCI Radeon 9200 plays nicely together with all of the AGP Radeon 8xxx and 9xxx cards. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr Makley wrote:
Roland, I am getting confused following this thread. Are you saying that there is very little difference between the same PCI and AGP graphics cards? Yes, if the cards are otherwise identical. (And keep in mind only low-end cards are available for pci, with high-end cards which are much, much faster today you'd see more difference.) Roland |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video
cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more expensive than similar AGP based video cards? "Roland Scheidegger" wrote in message ... Rob Stow wrote: A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x. It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like 640x480 or 800x600. The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered different), thus this statement is completely false. The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games, but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without loosing performance if such pci cards would exist). Roland |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more expensive than similar AGP based video cards? No, the Radeon 9200's and 9200SE's are very similarly priced for the AGP and PCI versions - and at some vendors they have *exactly* the same price. For example, about five weeks ago I bought four 128 MB ATI Radeon 9200 PCI cards for $139.95 each at FutureShop (Canadian electronics store chain). The AGP version of the card at that store had exactly the same price. "Roland Scheidegger" wrote in message ... Rob Stow wrote: A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x. It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like 640x480 or 800x600. The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered different), thus this statement is completely false. The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games, but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without loosing performance if such pci cards would exist). Roland |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Decent mobo with integrated graphics & AGP | ]v[etaphoid | Homebuilt PC's | 16 | January 27th 05 09:41 AM |
(OT) Sort of. Compaq Mobo Follow-Up. | Phoenix | General | 1 | January 14th 05 08:48 AM |
Bad mobo? | wayneP | Homebuilt PC's | 7 | December 23rd 04 10:00 AM |
Value of integrated graphics on mobo? | Corvin | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | April 7th 04 01:19 PM |
How to connect front audio ports to mobo | *Vanguard* | General | 5 | December 17th 03 09:35 PM |