Windows 2000 does not utilize 4X AGP

[fkloster]

Read it and weap!



<< And based on these limited tests, what's up is that advanced AGP features, Win2K, Via chipsets, and NVIDIA video cards aren't the most potent mix. All the checklist features are there, but for the time being, I'm assuming they don't work or simply don't amount to anything. Maybe some additional reader mail will show me what I'm missing. >>

 

[NFS4]

AGP 4x doesn't mean squat on any platform.

 

[fkloster]

Sorry NFS4, your incorrect. It actually would make a difference. You are using more memory on the card, than the AGP bus. The higher resolution would require more data between the AGP bus and the system memory to be passed. Meaning that the AGP 4X should be faster that the 2X. Theoretically of course. The higher the texture # &amp; the higher resolution will involve more AGP bus...

 

[MaxFPS]

wow! 0.3fps faster in AGP 2x...this is amazing!

 

[Buddha Bart]

It doesn't matter now, just like the celerons 66mhz FSB didn't matter to the Pentium II's 100mhz FSB. It will eventually and in the not-to-distant future.

bart

 

[NFS4]

<< Sorry NFS4, your incorrect. It actually would make a difference. You are using more memory on the card, than the AGP bus. The higher resolution would require more data between the AGP bus and the system memory to be passed. Meaning that the AGP 4X should be faster that the 2X. Theoretically of course. The higher the texture # &amp; the higher resolution will involve more AGP bus... >>


THEORETICALLY. In real-world peformance, it doesn't mean Jack Squat like I said. Anand has even said it himself.

1-2 FPS can be written off if you ask me.

 

[fkloster]

(fkloster will go back to sleep now )

 

[VladTrishkin]

AGP 4X is just as important as anything is in the video subsystem. You might not see the real advantage of it now, but future cards will utilize a lot more date transfer between the chipset and the AGP bus. 3dFx is even rumoring that the Rampage will take advantage of AGP 8x.

 

[John]

Isn't AGP 8x right around the corner? ::shrug::

 

[xtreme2k]

we will not be using the AGP texture excute mode CORRECTLY anytime soon

say we have the greatest AGP 8x = 2.1GB/s bandwidth
that is STILL MUCH LOWER than any highend video card now those are into the 5GB/s bandwidth
talk about low end MX, still 2.7GB/s


by the time AGP8x is out, high end cards having 10GB/s+ bandwidth is 'standard'
i am sure you wont wana be swapping textures at 2.1G while your local video ram does it at 10GB/s

 

[Rellik]

Buddha Bart, I agree that for stuff like word processing and websurfing, it doesn´t really matter if u use a 400Mhz Celeron or the P2. However, Q3A shows a difference in framerates if u compare the two. Also, a 100fsb P2 at 400Mhz beats a 400Mhz Celeron system in Seti
by up to 2 hours!

Every system is only as good as it´s weakest chain......

 

[xtreme2k]

Vlad

3dfx stating their next gen card will take 'advantage' of AGP8x

man, DAMN, OF CAUSE it takes 'advantage' of AGP8x, not that it will be slower with 8x than with 4x or 2x. But is performance is STILL unacceptable for texture swap

 

[Fozzie]

On the contrary, with compressed textures 2.1GB's of bandwidth is very useful. The majority of bandwidth that is used on a Graphics card is in the z-buffer &amp; frame-buffers. Even a Geforce with SDR can do Q3A at full resolution textures, just not at higher resolutions where the buffers grow to unmanagable sizes.

Frankly AGP texturing has gotten a bad rap. If developers take advantage of it properly, swaping individual textures in and out of local ram instead of all the testures in a scene, then its a good thing to have.

Looking towards the future with increased polygon counts and possible virtual texturing implimentations then AGP 8X looks to be the first AGP over 2X that is truely needed. I'll admit that currently in the majority of games AGP 4X isn't very useful.

 

[AdamK47]

Hmmm... it looks like they changed the article a bit after I gave them a link to this forum thread:

nVmax forum thread

And heres a link to an Anandtech forum thread from a long time ago:

Link to local thread

For some reason info on the 6.4 drivers and 7.xx drivers doesn't appeal to any of you doofy mofos! GRRRRRRRRR!

 

[Lore]

It also depends a lot on the structure of the motherboard's chipset; for example, the Serverworks ServerSet III HE chipset only has AGP 2x/Pro. But according to benchmarks and what I've heard from those using the systems, the performance of the AGP 2x exceeds that of an AGP 4x system on a Via or Intel chipset because of the way the ServerSet III HE chipset was designed to maximize memory bandwidth.

 

[BFG10K]

Despite the bad knocks AGP texturing has received it does work. Benchmarks at Sharky Extreme show that memory bandwidth was significantly higher with it enabled than when disabled. I tried to put up a link, but the page seems to have gone.

Nevertheless with AGP texturing enabled the GF2 was tripling it's external memory bandwidth scores. Nobody is denying that local VRAM is much faster than system RAM. But AGP textured memory is much faster than normal RAM.

With widespread texture usage becoming more and more popular in games, even texture compression can't keep all of the textures in local video memory. When used properly, the benefits of AGP texturing in these situtaions is apparent.