LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.SPARKLE has announced a handful of GeForce 8400GS graphics cards that slot into a PCIe x1 interface.
Read more.SPARKLE has announced a handful of GeForce 8400GS graphics cards that slot into a PCIe x1 interface.
How would this compair performance wise to a Quadro NVS 290? and do they come with low profile brackets?
Yes the Quadros are expensive, but they ae already available in PCIe 1x versions and can be low or full profile.
It amazes me how many motherboards that aren't SLI/CrossFire geared have a 16x PEG slot, then maybe one or two 1x PCIe slots... there are cards that require 4x or 8x (my RAID card, for example).
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
The Quadros are 'professional' graphics cards. Unlike the 8400, which is a gaming card and therefore optimised to render as many polygons (or whatever) as possible each fraction of a second while maintaining the fps, the Quadro series is optimised to finish rendering the polygons with no regard to fps, as accurate pictures rather than fps are required. That is how I understand it, anyway. So even a high end Quadro card costing over £1000 will do worse in games than a mid-high end gaming graphics card costing £150-200, so for games I would go for the PCI-E x1 8400 every time.Originally Posted by Funkstar
That is how I understand it anyway!
There are few expansion cards requiring x4 or x8 PCIe slots, and these will work in x16 slots. In contrast, there are lots of things taking x1 slots - sound cards and physics cards, as well as many sata controllers. I guess motherboard manufacturers figure there's little point in putting a x4 or x8 slot in when they could put in a x16 slot, which all graphics cards these days (bar this 8400GS!) use (forgetting about PCIe 2.0 for the moment).
Besides, my motherboard (the Asus P5Q Pro) comes with a x16 and a x8 slot. Both are the same length: this is so I can fit a secondary graphics card (which I have), using just x8 bandwidth. My understanding of their logic is that the PCI-e controller is unable to handle the bandwidth of two PCIe x16 slots, but for most applications x8 bandwidth is sufficient, even for x16 graphics cards.
You miss my point. Where do I put my graphics card if I put my RAID controller in the only 16x slot?
1x isn't even enough for a single SATA 3Gbps channel - it's lucky no hard drive gets anywhere near that except when bursting.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Fair enough. But I suppose, generally, the people sufficiently tech savvy to be using RAID controllers will have chosen a motherboard with sufficient bandwidth for all the cards they'll be using, while for the majority of users having multiple expansion slots is a waste of money since they'll just sit there gathering dust.
True, but in real-world settings it's sufficient for two hard drives maxing out - the only exceptions might be the newest generation of SSDs and when solely reading/writing from/to HDD cache, which (I may be wrong) is unlikely to happen much since (I imagine) most people would have their primary HDD direct into the motherboard, and using the onboard RAID controller if they needed RAID with the OS.
Still, not enough for RAIDs with more than two cards, certainly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote