A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Motherboards » Gigabyte Motherboards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Value of integrated graphics on mobo?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 10th 04, 01:28 AM
Roland Scheidegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 03:37 AM
Rob Stow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 01:46 PM
Psi-Tau Paladin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 03:54 PM
Psi-Tau Paladin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 04:23 PM
Roland Scheidegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 04:45 PM
Roland Scheidegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 06:03 PM
Rob Stow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 10th 04, 11:06 PM
Roland Scheidegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 13th 04, 04:21 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 13th 04, 07:53 AM
Rob Stow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Decent mobo with integrated graphics & AGP ]v[etaphoid Homebuilt PC's 16 January 27th 05 10:41 AM
(OT) Sort of. Compaq Mobo Follow-Up. Phoenix General 1 January 14th 05 09:48 AM
Bad mobo? wayneP Homebuilt PC's 7 December 23rd 04 11:00 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 10:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.