AGP/PCI-e argument

[coomar]

sata1 and 2 are standards, their a bit of a crock due to hardware limitations

agp 4x in comparison to 8x is very small on modern cards, i doubt you could see anything with the mx

another advantage of pci-e is power supplied by the board to the GPU

the 7800gt has 80watt draw i believe (pci-e supplies 75), it seems card power is coming down (as the process gets smaller) to match pci-e for all but the top-end cards

pci has been the standard for a long time, when they switched to pci the industry did the same thing, they announced the switch early, people got screwed who weren't paying attention

you bought the x800 vanilla well after pci-e had been annouced and more and more top-end cards were pci-e native (money was probably saved in the short run)

what do you have against standards, in the long run they cut down on cost

 

[Gamingphreek]

Last i check X-Fi was coming out for PCI-E not standard PCI.

-Kevin

 

[imported_Doughboy]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Last i check X-Fi was coming out for PCI-E not standard PCI.

-Kevin

A quote from extremetech.com:
"According to Creative, PCIe is certainly on the roadmap, but the first X-Fi products will be PCI offerings to address the wider mainstream market."

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Last i check X-Fi was coming out for PCI-E not standard PCI.

-Kevin

X-Fi is on standard PCI for now.

 

[coomar]

its on pci, its not sound that requires the bandwith, its NIC and RAID controllers

though X-Fi should be on pci-e as well

 

[mordantmonkey]

they won't spend the money on making full use of the pci express technology until it becomes the "wider mainstream market". until then it will seem like an unnecessary push. but the technology must be widely adopted before they can really develop it. whats the point of developing a card that wouldn't work fully in AGP versions, when most of your market is still on AGP.

 

[Fenuxx]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
whats the point of developing a card that wouldn't work fully in AGP versions, when most of your market is still on AGP.

Thats EXACTLY why its a stupid move to not support AGP. There's too big of a market there. I would upgrade to PCI-E, but I just don't have the money to buy BOTH a graphics card AND a new mobo. Why? College eats all of my money, so a GPU upgrade is about all that I could afford anyways. Others with AGP are in a similar boat that I'm in. Its not the fact that I "refuse" to upgrade to PCI-E, no. Its a money factor. Some of us can't afford an FX-57 with 2GB of RAM and 2 7800GTX's. Why must we be shunned? Because we have other things that are more important? Don't be telling me to throw out what perfectly good mobo that I have just so I can conform to what NVIDIA and ATI thinks everyone should have. There is nothing wrong with AGP, so there's no reason not to support it. Isn't that why NVIDIA and ATI developed their bridge chips? To be able to support both platforms? The bridge chips work both ways, they went from AGP -> PCI-E with the 6-Series and X800-Series, and they can go from PCI-E -> AGP with the 7-Series and R520. There's no specific reason why they can't do this, as the bridge chips WERE designed to do that exact thing.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: geforcetony

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
whats the point of developing a card that wouldn't work fully in AGP versions, when most of your market is still on AGP.

Thats EXACTLY why its a stupid move to not support AGP. There's too big of a market there. I would upgrade to PCI-E, but I just don't have the money to buy BOTH a graphics card AND a new mobo. Why? College eats all of my money, so a GPU upgrade is about all that I could afford anyways. Others with AGP are in a similar boat that I'm in. Its not the fact that I "refuse" to upgrade to PCI-E, no. Its a money factor. Some of us can't afford an FX-57 with 2GB of RAM and 2 7800GTX's. Why must we be shunned? Because we have other things that are more important? Don't be telling me to throw out what perfectly good mobo that I have just so I can conform to what NVIDIA and ATI thinks everyone should have. There is nothing wrong with AGP, so there's no reason not to support it. Isn't that why NVIDIA and ATI developed their bridge chips? To be able to support both platforms? The bridge chips work both ways, they went from AGP -> PCI-E with the 6-Series and X800-Series, and they can go from PCI-E -> AGP with the 7-Series and R520. There's no specific reason why they can't do this, as the bridge chips WERE designed to do that exact thing.

Good point. That's why we have ULI chipsets =P. I thought the X800 was a PCI-E => AGP bridge.. dunno... I thought NV was the one that didn't have native PCIE support, but I could be wrong.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: coomar
sata1 and 2 are standards, their a bit of a crock due to hardware limitations

agp 4x in comparison to 8x is very small on modern cards, i doubt you could see anything with the mx

another advantage of pci-e is power supplied by the board to the GPU

the 7800gt has 80watt draw i believe (pci-e supplies 75), it seems card power is coming down (as the process gets smaller) to match pci-e for all but the top-end cards

pci has been the standard for a long time, when they switched to pci the industry did the same thing, they announced the switch early, people got screwed who weren't paying attention

you bought the x800 vanilla well after pci-e had been annouced and more and more top-end cards were pci-e native (money was probably saved in the short run)

what do you have against standards, in the long run they cut down on cost

I have nothing against standards, I have a problem when companys take a "all or nothing" approach to forcing people to switch over. I know good and well PCI-E is the future of video cards. Nvidia should support AGP fully for another generation or 2, sure it could make the design costs go way up, and sure most if not all new PC makers will be using PCI-E. But, there are many home pc builders like me, who don't want to switch from AGP because I'll see no difference. When the day comes and PCI-E actually offers benefits I'll be more then happy to run out and get a new MB.

 

[Tanclearas]

Several of the last replies obviously did not read the paragraph in my last post enough times. Here it is again. READ IT. UNDERSTAND IT. BELIEVE IT.

Nvidia and ATI need to focus initial production (which is limited) to where the money is at. The money is with the OEM's. The OEM's are building new PC's. New PC's use PCIe. As shocking as this may sound to you, Nvidia and ATI are in business to make money. They are publicly traded companies. It is their responsibility to make money for their stockholders.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: QueBert
I know good and well PCI-E is the future of video cards. Nvidia should support AGP fully for another generation or 2, sure it could make the design costs go way up, and sure most if not all new PC makers will be using PCI-E. But, there are many home pc builders like me, who don't want to switch from AGP because I'll see no difference.

Like it or not, home builders like you are a pretty small portion of the market. You said it yourself costs will go up, and the PC makers (where the bulk of their money will be made) are going to be using PCI-e.

It sucks being in the minority, but the fact is that you are. A vocal minority, but a minority none-the-less.

 

[dev0lution]

PCI-E x1 RAID, SATA, Firewire and combo cards are all starting to come out now (SIIG cards for example). And personally I'm glad my PCI-E slot has the juice to power my X800XL without hijacking a molex from my power supply. How many AGP X800XL users can say the same?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Concillian

Originally posted by: QueBert
I know good and well PCI-E is the future of video cards. Nvidia should support AGP fully for another generation or 2, sure it could make the design costs go way up, and sure most if not all new PC makers will be using PCI-E. But, there are many home pc builders like me, who don't want to switch from AGP because I'll see no difference.

Like it or not, home builders like you are a pretty small portion of the market. You said it yourself costs will go up, and the PC makers (where the bulk of their money will be made) are going to be using PCI-e.

It sucks being in the minority, but the fact is that you are. A vocal minority, but a minority none-the-less.

small portion? yes, but even if it was 5% that is A LOT of potential money. Every electronics store in my city has tons of AGP cards on the shelf, they sell. Selling = money for ATI & Nvidia.

 

[Gamingphreek]

However, most of the people who are buying the bleeding edge cards already have PCI-E or are expected to. It would cost them a lot more money to create graphics cards based on AGP in addition to their cards right now. Seeing as a large part of the market is going to PCI-E, the costs of continuing AGP outweigh the benefits.

-Kevin

 

[fsstrike]

This is how I look at it, im sure that 90% of people buying the top end video cards today will most likely have a PCI setup. But there are still many people with good AGP systems that WOULD buy one if they could (like me). If the 7800 GTX was available in AGP, id buy one, but honestly I do not expect that they will ever be available.

However, I am not too concerned. I mean, it would be nice to have a 7800 GTX but it really doesnt matter that much to me. I can play all the games I play perfectly on my x800 Pro, and I really have no complaints. Those with high end AGP systems should be okay for now (Such as x800 and 6800 owners).

 

[phaxmohdem]

This is a good thread to read... its actually held muy interest through all 4 pages to this point.

(Slightly Off Topic Question)
Does anyone know about speed advantages of PCI-E over older "extended PCI" technologies like PCI-X (64 bit PCI slots)? If you are running a high end RAID setup you will have it running in one of these cards not a standard PCI slot.

Concerning Video Cards:
I believe that the switch to PCI-e Is inevitable and that eventually manufacturers should switch soley to PCI-e. However I think that it is still too early in the game to neglect all AGP users. Perhaps they should release AGP versions of the nVidia G70, and ATI R520 series of cards... then make the full switch to PCI-e. This way people have an upgrade path for their high end AGP boards for the next 6-12 months until something better comes out. This would also give people options for the next 3-5 years as an upgrade path if they are truely computer Noobs and just want to upgrade stuff. Hell the MX4000 card still has a market purpose.... As a (sort of high end) AGP user myself though I must admit that I will not be purchasing any new/improved video card for the AGP standard faster than my current x800XL. When my system becomes too slow for my purposes again I will certainly be upgrading from the Mobo up. I consider myself to be a power user of sorts, but my 2+ year old (now unsopported) ASUS SK8N and FX-51 CPU. Still feel faster to me than any other system I've used otherwise, and I don't believe I'll need to seriuosly upgrade for another 2 years to come unless near future software actually starts to stress my system.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Does anyone know about speed advantages of PCI-E over older "extended PCI" technologies like PCI-X (64 bit PCI slots)? If you are running a high end RAID setup you will have it running in one of these cards not a standard PCI slot.

Link

PCI-E is better and a more viable future solution.

-Kevin

 

[phaxmohdem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Does anyone know about speed advantages of PCI-E over older "extended PCI" technologies like PCI-X (64 bit PCI slots)? If you are running a high end RAID setup you will have it running in one of these cards not a standard PCI slot.

Link

PCI-E is better and a more viable future solution.

-Kevin

Thanks for the link. The article mentioned that PCI-X (64bit PCI) supports data transfer speeds of 512MBytes/Sec - 1GByte/Sec.

According to their math a 1X slot would only offer 400MBytes/Sec of total bandwidth. This is a definate improvement over PCI's capability of 133MBytes/Sec Maximum, however It sounds like to have a viable alternative in the high end RAID segment, you'd need at the very least a 4X slot to take on today's technology. Do many motherboards come standard with 4X lanes yet? Also could an SLI capable motherboard with two x16 lanes theoretically support a Video Card in one slot, and an x16 RAID adapter in the second slot?

Also since I have not as of yet seen it posted in this article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8-Bit ISA = ~7.9MBytes/sec
16-Bit ISA = ~15.9 MBytes/sec
EISA = ~31.8MBytes/sec
VLB = ~127MBytes/sec

PCI (standard 33MHz) = ~127MBytes/sec
PCI-X (64Bit) = ~512MBytes-1GByte/sec (Depending on protocol used)

AGP 1X = ~254MBytes/sec
AGP 2x = ~508MBytes/sec
AGP 4x = ~1.0GBytes/sec
AGP 8X = ~2.1GBytes/sec

PCIe 1X = ~400MBytes/sec
PCIe 2x = ~800MBytes/sec
PCIe 4x = ~1.6GBytes/sec
PCIe 8x = ~3.2GBytes/sec
PCIe 12x = ~4.8GBytes/sec
PCIe 16x = ~6.4GBytes/sec
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Gamingphreek]

You also have to remember that PCI-X is still your standard PCI interconnect. That transfer rate is shared. With PCI-E each of the lanes is seperate.

-Kevin

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: biostud
expenisve and complicated to keep both in the long run.

I agree, here. The bus architecture is different for a PCI Express native chip and an AGP native chip. So bridge chips would have to be used. Those add to expense. Creating AGP and PCI express means more R&D in ATi's case it could have meant re-taping both AGP and PCIe cores. Thus creating a very expensive procedure where more can go wrong. That can become very costly. When there is a heightened risk that you could lose a considerable sum of money, would you take it? But, alas...there may be bridged versions to AGP, so, we'll have to see. Also, I'm sure the AGP bus will soon be choked by Windows Vista requirements and the increased strain put on video cards in just the windows environment. Additionally, I'd bet the type of bus AGP is won't allow for certain type of features that PCIe could allow. So, I think PCI Express is a worthwhile investment, IMO.

 

[CP5670]

I agree, here. The bus architecture is different for a PCI Express native chip and an AGP native chip. So bridge chips would have to be used. Those add to expense. Creating AGP and PCI express means more R&D in ATi's case it could have meant re-taping both AGP and PCIe cores. Thus creating a very expensive procedure where more can go wrong. That can become very costly. When there is a heightened risk that you could lose a considerable sum of money, would you take it? But, alas...there may be bridged versions to AGP, so, we'll have to see. Also, I'm sure the AGP bus will soon be choked by Windows Vista requirements and the increased strain put on video cards in just the windows environment. Additionally, I'd bet the type of bus AGP is won't allow for certain type of features that PCIe could allow. So, I think PCI Express is a worthwhile investment, IMO.

I don't understand why so many people are actually opposed to having AGP versions of current cards. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy them if you don't want to; they just give some of us more upgrade choices. As for the added costs for the manufacturer, it could to true to some extent, but I don't see anyone saying that AMD for example should stop Opteron production and only make Athlon 64s since none of us are going to buy those and they just add to the company's costs, despite that being an equally valid argument. However, it sort of makes sense that nvidia is only offering PCIE versions despite there being a sizeable retail market for AGP, since the OEMs have all gone PCIE, it would lead to better sales on the nforce4 and ATI has nothing equivalent anyway.

I know that my 6800 GT gains about a 1% improvement overall going from AGP 4X to 8X, so I really doubt the 7800 GTX or R520 will already use up the available 8X bandwidth, even with the new windows requirements.

 

[Busithoth]

I think this whole argument is kind of funny. The OP speaks more of the technological reasons for forcing the PCI-E switch. Because it's the future is the stock answer, with a nice "stop whining" on top of it.
I love my shuttle, which has an AGP slot, and I'm not planning on upgrading again until BTX comes out.
I also like the idea of a MB with only PCI-E slots (hey, I don't miss ISA).

I think there's a nice window of opportunity that ATI could capitalize on by providing AGP cards in sufficient numbers.
Really, though I'm loathe to resort to it, I have faith in the economics of the situation. People who bought machines a year or two ago and want to upgrade just their video card will have to go with AGP. But AGP's share is going to shrink until it's no longer viable to produce new versions of the cards. I find it hard to cry about having only a x850xt pe in your system. boo frakking hoo.

 

[coomar]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I agree, here. The bus architecture is different for a PCI Express native chip and an AGP native chip. So bridge chips would have to be used. Those add to expense. Creating AGP and PCI express means more R&D in ATi's case it could have meant re-taping both AGP and PCIe cores. Thus creating a very expensive procedure where more can go wrong. That can become very costly. When there is a heightened risk that you could lose a considerable sum of money, would you take it? But, alas...there may be bridged versions to AGP, so, we'll have to see. Also, I'm sure the AGP bus will soon be choked by Windows Vista requirements and the increased strain put on video cards in just the windows environment. Additionally, I'd bet the type of bus AGP is won't allow for certain type of features that PCIe could allow. So, I think PCI Express is a worthwhile investment, IMO.

I don't understand why so many people are actually opposed to having AGP versions of current cards. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy them if you don't want to; they just give some of us more upgrade choices. As for the added costs for the manufacturer, it could to true to some extent, but I don't see anyone saying that AMD for example should stop Opteron production and only make Athlon 64s since none of us are going to buy those and they just add to the company's costs, despite that being an equally valid argument. However, it sort of makes sense that nvidia is only offering PCIE versions despite there being a sizeable retail market for AGP, since the OEMs have all gone PCIE, it would lead to better sales on the nforce4 and ATI has nothing equivalent anyway.

I know that my 6800 GT gains about a 1% improvement overall going from AGP 4X to 8X, so I really doubt the 7800 GTX or R520 will already use up the available 8X bandwidth, even with the new windows requirements.

uh no
the reason for opterons are for people who need workstations, now that single core opterons are migrating to socket 939, the 940 opterons are for those who need more cpu's, its a totally different situation to agp/pci-e which has 2 formats, one that is clearly technically superior and is being used in all new computers (dell only sells pci-e now)

most boards come with a pci-e 4x slot, i know my ultra-d has 1 even if its placement is pretty bad

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: CP5670

I agree, here. The bus architecture is different for a PCI Express native chip and an AGP native chip. So bridge chips would have to be used. Those add to expense. Creating AGP and PCI express means more R&D in ATi's case it could have meant re-taping both AGP and PCIe cores. Thus creating a very expensive procedure where more can go wrong. That can become very costly. When there is a heightened risk that you could lose a considerable sum of money, would you take it? But, alas...there may be bridged versions to AGP, so, we'll have to see. Also, I'm sure the AGP bus will soon be choked by Windows Vista requirements and the increased strain put on video cards in just the windows environment. Additionally, I'd bet the type of bus AGP is won't allow for certain type of features that PCIe could allow. So, I think PCI Express is a worthwhile investment, IMO.

I don't understand why so many people are actually opposed to having AGP versions of current cards. It's not like anyone is forcing you to buy them if you don't want to; they just give some of us more upgrade choices. As for the added costs for the manufacturer, it could to true to some extent, but I don't see anyone saying that AMD for example should stop Opteron production and only make Athlon 64s since none of us are going to buy those and they just add to the company's costs, despite that being an equally valid argument. However, it sort of makes sense that nvidia is only offering PCIE versions despite there being a sizeable retail market for AGP, since the OEMs have all gone PCIE, it would lead to better sales on the nforce4 and ATI has nothing equivalent anyway.

I know that my 6800 GT gains about a 1% improvement overall going from AGP 4X to 8X, so I really doubt the 7800 GTX or R520 will already use up the available 8X bandwidth, even with the new windows requirements.

uh no
the reason for opterons are for people who need workstations, now that single core opterons are migrating to socket 939, the 940 opterons are for those who need more cpu's, its a totally different situation to agp/pci-e which has 2 formats, one that is clearly technically superior and is being used in all new computers (dell only sells pci-e now)

most boards come with a pci-e 4x slot, i know my ultra-d has 1 even if its placement is pretty bad

ATA166 is technically superior to ata100, after all these years it offers no improvement over ata100 though.

My final thought, stop making AGP cards when AGP can't handle the card. PCI-E is ovbiously superior, but it will be a good while before it actually will have real world benefits. If ATI's 520 is the last core they make AGP cards for I'm fine with that, it'll still give me years of gaming.

 

[CP5670]

uh no
the reason for opterons are for people who need workstations, now that single core opterons are migrating to socket 939, the 940 opterons are for those who need more cpu's, its a totally different situation to agp/pci-e which has 2 formats, one that is clearly technically superior and is being used in all new computers (dell only sells pci-e now)

most boards come with a pci-e 4x slot, i know my ultra-d has 1 even if its placement is pretty bad

exactly, so AGP R520s are for people who need AGP cards. It's a similar situation in the sense that each product line has a market for it even if not everyone is interested in all of the products. There is still a good market for high end AGP cards in retail channels, even if the big OEMs have switched over, so it makes no sense to say that they increase costs for the company and shouldn't be made just because of that. If the manufacturers think there are profits to be made, they will release them. Anyway I think nvidia is actually just delaying AGP versions until ATI comes out with their competitor (whenever that will happen), which will allow them to maximize nforce4 motherboard sales.

The "technically superior" thing is going to be irrelevant for a while unless you need SLI; as I said, it looks like the last generation was barely hitting the limits of 4X AGP. By the time PCIE actually offers a performance advantage over AGP, I will have a new motherboard anyway with the M2 socket coming out next year, so it doesn't make sense to consider future improvements either.