AGP's Last Hurrah (again)

[Pleiades]

ATI have announced the 2600 for AGP: my question is, for DX9 and XP, will it be faster than the two previous contenders, 1950XT and Nv 7950GT? I understand it may be worth it for Vista and DX10 compatibility on old AGP mobos but I'm not interested in either at the moment, whereas I have 4 PCs running XP (or earlier) that could benefit from a decent end-of-life gfx upgrade...

[Pleiades]

I think I'll answer my own question here, as I've found a few reviews of the ATI HD 2600XT and it doesn't look as if it will be much cop for DX9 after all (due to 128-bit memory?)

So have another query (will start new thread as well I think): if I go for the 1950XT, should I choose the AGP version or the PCI-E (for Asrock 4Core VSTA which only has PCI-E 4x for gfx)? Wouldn't it be even more crippled in the PCI-E slot than in the AGP? Of course it would work out about £30 cheaper though...

Update: Asrock's website now has the 8800 GTS 320MB as compatible, surely that wouldn't fly well on PCI-E 4x? Another thread beckons methinks

[awm]

So, for bandwidth its a little confusing. AGP is about 2GB/s for both directions. PCI-e 4x is about 1GB/s each direction. So for roughly equal transfers in each direction it doesn't make a difference, however the hugely unilateral nature of 3D graphics (textures, matrices, etc go one way, an OK goes the other) AGP 8x will be faster. The question of if this bandwidth is needed is largely a matter of what games you play. Older games were made to work fine with AGP 4x so PCI-e 4x is fine. New games I couldn't tell you. To further complicate things you should think about the advantage of having a PCIe card for the possibility of upgrading or putting in another computer later. AGP also costs a little more usually. Sorry to be so confusing, its a difficult situation and a difficult decision.

[KowShak]

PCIe is faster, twice as fast in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express

PCI Express x16 = 4 GB/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Graphics_Port

AGP 8x
A 32-bit channel operating at 66 MHz, strobing eight times per clock, delivering an effective 533 MHz resulting in a maximum data rate of 2133 MB/s (2 GB/s); 0.8 V signaling.

Tomshardware did some benchmarks, by covering different numbers of the interface "fingers" with sticky tape they managed to make a graphics card work as PCIe x1, x2, x4, x8 and x16. They found that the bandwidth made very little difference to the performance of the card.....

[awm]

If you look back on the question you'll see we're talking about 4x PCIe. Reading the articles you linked to should also clue you in on the diffence in how bandwidth is allocated.

[DataMatrix]

PCI-E v2.0 will be out soon and will mop the floor with both PCI and AGP.

PCI-E v1.1 can provide 75W power, and PCI-E 2.0 can provide 150W. AGP and PCI don't stand a chance.

PCI-E FTW!!!

[Pleiades]

OK Mr Matrix, calm down calm down! I'm sure PCI-E V.20 rulez but dat 4 da future.

Having said that, most 'advances' in PC interfaces have been incremental at best, at least to begin with i.e. the first PCI cards weren't faster than VESA bus, nor were AGP ones better than PCI (or SATA over PATA for that case). But by the second or third iteration the gap increases exponentially (not in a literal sense, don't have figures to prove that LOL)...

Anyway I guess a 8800GTS over PCI-E 4x will still be faster than X1950XT over AGP so if performance comes into it, there's no doubt which I should choose. Pricewise, X1950XT on PCI-E is £30 less than on AGP so again the choice should be automatic. Except of course I couldn't hand it down to another of my systems (all AGP remember) if and when I did eventually move to 8800... hmm more to think about...

Thx 4 input guys!

[awm]

Good luck sorting it all out, and remember nothing you have said so for would be a wrong decision.

[Pleiades]

Thanks AWM BTW That was the fastest response to a post I've ever had LOLz

I reckon I should be a 'senior member' since I've been registered since 2004 and you're only a newbie in comparison hehe

[awm]

The response was completly by chance. I just logged on right then. As for the "Senior Member" it just has to do with post count. It really should say "Can't keep his mouth shut"... hmmm... there's an idea .

[DratUK]

LOL I faced the same question. I have put the Asrock as mentioned with a 1950XT AGP initially, I have now put a spare 8800GTX in. It wasnt on the Asrock website as being compatible, the GTX that is, so I emailed Asrock Tech.

Fast response within 24 hrs in fact, still waiting on a response from Asus after 3 months . Still their reply was they didn't have a GTX in the labs to test.
Anyway its works and back to the question. In daily gaming with FEAR BF2 Need for Speed Underground at full res on a 19 inch monitor with all eye candy we couldn't see a difference. TBH the bench marks would probably indicate differently, but hey, the games run smooth with both.

[Pleiades]

Cheers Drat! It amazes me though how Asrock hasn't tested boards that have been available for months, would have thought they'd get in *every* new gpu as soon as poss...

I guess you'd have to run v.high res (eg 2560x1920) for the GTX to be bottlenecked on PCI-E 4x bus. I run 1680x1050 so maybe on the borderline... Not sure how gpus operate as such, all that stuff about streams and vertex shaders; but using higher AA + AF settings wouldn't require more bandwidth would it?

[DratUK]

Cheers Drat! It amazes me though how Asrock hasn't tested boards that have been available for months, would have thought they'd get in *every* new gpu as soon as poss...

I guess you'd have to run v.high res (eg 2560x1920) for the GTX to be bottlenecked on PCI-E 4x bus. I run 1680x1050 so maybe on the borderline... Not sure how gpus operate as such, all that stuff about streams and vertex shaders; but using higher AA + AF settings wouldn't require more bandwidth would it?

personally if I were in your position I would go for the PCI-e.
Reasoning; You will have a card that will fit all modern "standard" ATX mobo's. At some point you will be changing the mobo, you would then be left with a redundant graphics card. I would purchase a 320 mb GTS which will run at the resolution you have. At least then you can put that in a future mobo.
Tis up to you but I wouldnt worry to much about bottlenecking.

As long as you achieve a framerate of 60fps and above you will have a decent gaming experience.

[Pleiades]

Thanks Drat. That's true about 60fps, lots of people get hung up over insane fps that humans can't even see! Games like Doom 3 and HL2 are designed for 60fps maximum. Gfx should be about going for quality over quantity in that regard, and I'd much rather have HDR, AA + AF, soft shadows et al than wireframes @ 2000fps

I think 8800GTS 320MB is a good compromise choice for my mobo TBH

[Pob255]

From what I've read, that board is incompatable with the 8800GTX but a 8800GTS works ok with the new nvidia drivers.

The PCI-e x4 losses little performance on 1280x1024 (1-3fps) but is a more notable drop at 1600x1200

What it's like at 1680x1050 . . . just have to try and see.