is a single 7950 bottlenecked by pci-e 2.0?

[futurefields]

dumb question probably, i think i remember hearing that no single cards fully use pci express 2.0 hence there would be no need for 3.0 on a single gpu setup

got my 7950 a day early woooo thank you newegg

edit: wwweeeoor fary cry 3 actually runs smooth nowww weeeeee

 

[x3sphere]

No... even crossfire 7950 is not bottlenecked by PCI-e 2.0

 

[taq8ojh]

Not by far. The whole PCIE 3.0 business is exactly the same overhyped thing as SATA3 when it comes to classical hard disks.

 

[alcoholbob]

Not even a Titan...well PCIe 2.0 8x maybe, 16x no.

 

[zephyrprime]

No. The last time bus bandwidth mattered was back before 3d accelerated cards. Back then, a lot of copying of bitmaps was done between main memory and the video card. This is uneccessary now because video cards have so much memory. Only super low end video cards with < 1gb of memory would be affected. Truth is, not much data is transferred across the bus to video cards except when levels first load in order to load all the textures.

 

[Stuka87]

Not by far. The whole PCIE 3.0 business is exactly the same overhyped thing as SATA3 when it comes to classical hard disks.

And by "SATA3" you mean SATA 6 right? Since there is not such thing as SATAI, SATAII, or SATAIII. As SATA-IO has clearly stated multiple times that it is SATA 1.5, SATA 3, and SATA 6.

Sorry pet peave when people constantly refer to it by a made up name.

And according to Anand's testing, current cards are limited by PCI-E 1.0 in some cases, but all work fine under 2.0 and 3.0. The main difference comes for PCI-E devices that send data the other way.

 

[Imouto]

And by "SATA3" you mean SATA 6 right? Since there is not such thing as SATAI, SATAII, or SATAIII. As SATA-IO has clearly stated multiple times that it is SATA 1.5, SATA 3, and SATA 6.

U sure? For me it's pretty clear that it is SATA rev 1, 2, 3, etc.

 

[Stuka87]

U sure? For me it's pretty clear that it is SATA rev 1, 2, 3, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1716

SATA II was the name of the organization that created SATA 3Gbps. They changed their name to SATA-IO specifically because people started to use that as the brand name. SATA III is entirely made up by companies trying to sell their 6Gbps gear.

 

[taq8ojh]

Like normal people give a sh...
I was SO sure some nitpicker would come up with this from lack of any ideas how else to contribute to the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sata
For your viewing pleasure.

There's no such thing as SATA 6 either. Get your things straight, eh?
I won't stop using terms 99% of people use just because some random pixels said it was wrong.

 

[Stuka87]

Like normal people give a sh...
I was SO sure some nitpicker would come up with this from lack of any ideas how else to contribute to the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sata
For your viewing pleasure.

There's no such thing as SATA 6 either. Get your things straight, eh?
I won't stop using terms 99% of people use just because some random pixels said it was wrong.

1: I did contribute to the thread topic above.

2: I will take the creators of the standard over wikipedia any day of the week: http://www.sata-io.org/developers/naming_guidelines.asp

*IMPORTANT: Do not use the terms "SATA III" or "SATA 3.0," which will cause confusion. For product naming purposes, do not use either "Third Generation" or "Gen3" in the product name. Use "SATA 6Gb/s" instead. Please note that the references embedded within the new specification to "Gen3" are technical specification naming conventions only and should not be used for marketing and product naming purposes.

 

[taq8ojh]

I am sure 99% of people still don't give a shit and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[BrightCandle]

Depends on the use. If its games then no there isn't a bottleneck. But early tests of the 7970 showed bandwidth limitations with some compute benchmarks which showed marked improvements on pci-e 3.0.