PDA

View Full Version : Re: Value of integrated graphics on mobo?


mrdancer
April 7th 04, 09:33 PM
"Lem" > wrote in message
...
> Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
> offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
> quality motherboard like:
>
> Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
> Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
> Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
> MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
> etc

Graphics cards tend to be rather expensive - I can't find any for less than
$40USD locally. On the web, you can find some cheaper ones, e.g.:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=property&DEPA=0
but you have to be careful that the card will work with your mobo. For
example, the Sapphire listed on the above page is rated at 1.5V (as per
users' reviews) and thus will not work in all mobos. At a price point below
$30 or so, you're probably dealing with similar quality as most integrated
video.

Therefore, integrated video is a bargain if you're not a gamer, etc. Either
way, you can upgrade with a nice AGP card, then when your mobo needs
upgrading, you take the AGP card with you to the new mobo and sell/use the
old mobo w/ integrated video as part of a cheap bargain system.

Ken Oaf
April 7th 04, 10:08 PM
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:43:02 +0100, Lem > wrote:

> Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
> offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
> quality motherboard like:
>
> Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
> Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
> Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
> MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
> etc

the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent performance. You
are better off with a separate card.

wayne
April 8th 04, 02:51 AM
I found this 32MB PCI card looks pretty good for $22.00 AGP is pretty much
the same price

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/topmicrousa/sis32mbpci.html

Vendor has it for higher but a search showed it ant neutron express for 22
they just didn't have a good description!

Wayne

"Lem" > wrote in message ...
> "mrdancer" > wrote:
>
> > Graphics cards tend to be rather expensive - I can't find any
> > for less than $40USD locally. On the web, you can find some
> > cheaper ones, e.g.:
> > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=property&DEPA=
> > 0 but you have to be careful that the card will work with your
> > mobo. For example, the Sapphire listed on the above page is
> > rated at 1.5V (as per users' reviews) and thus will not work
> > in all mobos.
>
> Yikes. I was thinking of getting a Sapphire. I tired your link
> but just got a search page. Which Sapphire graphics card did you
> mean as they sell 5 different ones.
>
> Surely it's all plug and play these days and pretty much any modern
> graphics card will work pretty much any modern mobo. Or not?
>
>
> > At a price point below $30 or so, you're
> > probably dealing with similar quality as most integrated
> > video.
> >
> > Therefore, integrated video is a bargain if you're not a
> > gamer, etc. Either way, you can upgrade with a nice AGP card,
> > then when your mobo needs upgrading, you take the AGP card
> > with you to the new mobo and sell/use the old mobo w/
> > integrated video as part of a cheap bargain system.
>

Inglo
April 8th 04, 09:29 AM
On 4/7/2004 5:28 PM Lem brightened our day with:

>"mrdancer" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Graphics cards tend to be rather expensive - I can't find any
>>for less than $40USD locally. On the web, you can find some
>>cheaper ones, e.g.:
>>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=property&DEPA=
>>0 but you have to be careful that the card will work with your
>>mobo. For example, the Sapphire listed on the above page is
>>rated at 1.5V (as per users' reviews) and thus will not work
>>in all mobos.
>>
>>
>
>Yikes. I was thinking of getting a Sapphire. I tired your link
>but just got a search page. Which Sapphire graphics card did you
>mean as they sell 5 different ones.
>
>Surely it's all plug and play these days and pretty much any modern
>graphics card will work pretty much any modern mobo. Or not?
>
>
>
>
If you try putting that Sapphire into a 5 year old motherboard you might
have some problems. If you use modern components with modern components
no worries.
If you aren't going to be doing any intensive, cutting edge gaming
onboard graphics are fine. Get an nForce2 board with the IGP. They
cost about $10 more than the ones without.

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]

mrdancer
April 8th 04, 02:14 PM
"Lem" > wrote in message ...
> "mrdancer" > wrote:
>
> > Graphics cards tend to be rather expensive - I can't find any
> > for less than $40USD locally. On the web, you can find some
> > cheaper ones, e.g.:
> > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?submit=property&DEPA=
> > 0 but you have to be careful that the card will work with your
> > mobo. For example, the Sapphire listed on the above page is
> > rated at 1.5V (as per users' reviews) and thus will not work
> > in all mobos.
>
> Yikes. I was thinking of getting a Sapphire. I tired your link
> but just got a search page. Which Sapphire graphics card did you
> mean as they sell 5 different ones.
>
> Surely it's all plug and play these days and pretty much any modern
> graphics card will work pretty much any modern mobo. Or not?

Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/hqrh and read the user reviews.
Newegg's pn for the Sapphire is: N82E16814102178

Max
April 9th 04, 11:45 AM
Ken Oaf > wrote:

> the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent
> performance. You are better off with a separate card.

Do any graphics cards these days use the PCI slot?

If then then if I get an old PCI graphics, is it likely to be any
good?

wayne
April 9th 04, 01:33 PM
I posted a decent card with 32 mb of memory that is available in PCI and AGP
for 22.00!

Wayne


"Max" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Oaf > wrote:
>
> > the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent
> > performance. You are better off with a separate card.
>
> Do any graphics cards these days use the PCI slot?
>
> If then then if I get an old PCI graphics, is it likely to be any
> good?

Filip
April 9th 04, 05:00 PM
or you could get what I got my brother....the PCI version of the FX5200
128MB(maybe 64, but I think 128...)...works pretty darn good for a PCI card.
I was actually quite surprised. Enjoy.


"wayne" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I posted a decent card with 32 mb of memory that is available in PCI and
AGP
> for 22.00!
>
> Wayne
>
>
> "Max" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ken Oaf > wrote:
> >
> > > the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent
> > > performance. You are better off with a separate card.
> >
> > Do any graphics cards these days use the PCI slot?
> >
> > If then then if I get an old PCI graphics, is it likely to be any
> > good?
>
>

Inglo
April 9th 04, 05:46 PM
On 4/9/2004 9:00 AM Filip brightened our day with:

>or you could get what I got my brother....the PCI version of the FX5200
>128MB(maybe 64, but I think 128...)...works pretty darn good for a PCI card.
>I was actually quite surprised. Enjoy.
>
>
>
>
I have a friend who just got a PCI Radeon 9200 for his 900 MHz Celeron,
it actually plays Call of Duty, Max Payne2... pretty well, he just had
the crappy onboard intel graphics before which was horrible. The most
important thing to look for in one of those cards is memory bandwidth,
128 bit is leaps and bounds better than 64 bit. This is completely
different from the megabytes of RAM on the card. Some of these cheaper
cards come with up to 256 Mb of RAM, that is almost always a gimmick.
Fast 64 Mb RAM on 128 bit bus is going to be a lot better than slow 128
Mb RAM on a 64 bit bus.

--
"Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James

Steve [Inglo]

Rob Stow
April 10th 04, 12:27 AM
Piotr Makley wrote:

> Inglo > wrote:
>
>>I have a friend who just got a PCI Radeon 9200 for his 900 MHz
>>Celeron, it actually plays Call of Duty, Max Payne2... pretty
>>well, he just had the crappy onboard intel graphics before
>>which was horrible.
>>
>>The most important thing to look for in
>>one of those cards is memory bandwidth, 128 bit is leaps and
>>bounds better than 64 bit.
>>
>>This is completely different from
>>the megabytes of RAM on the card. Some of these cheaper cards
>>come with up to 256 Mb of RAM, that is almost always a
>>gimmick. Fast 64 Mb RAM on 128 bit bus is going to be a lot
>>better than slow 128 Mb RAM on a 64 bit bus.
>>
>
>
>
> Doesn't the use of PCI for a graphics card run the risk that the
> PCI bus may be busy with work for other cards and so the
> PCI graphics may suffer?

Usually the only other PCI devices that might compete
significantly for PCI bus bandwidth are hard drives.
However, on most motherboards made in the past few years,
the IDE ports on the motherboard are on a PCI bus that
is completely independent of the bus(es) used by the PCI slots.

>
> Also ... is the PCI bus as fast as the AGP slot?

A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
640x480 or 800x600.

For example, a PCI version of the Radeon 9200 benches pretty
much the same as the AGP version until you start playing games
at resolutions above 800x600. Even at 1024 x 768, most people
would need to see benchmarks to be able to tell the difference
between the AGP and PCI versions in most games.

As well, if you have a system so old that you are stuck with
PCI video, then your gaming bottleneck will be the processor.
If you have a PCI Radeon 9200 in an older system, then you
have eliminated the video card as the bottleneck for gaming or
other 3D performance - your ancient cpu is what you need to
worry about.

If you have a newer motherboard that has no AGP slot - then
shame on you for letting yourself get screwed by the vendor.
Server motherboards are, of course, a logical exemption.

Roland Scheidegger
April 10th 04, 01:28 AM
Rob Stow wrote:
> A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
> It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
> enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
> 640x480 or 800x600.
The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
different), thus this statement is completely false.
The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end
graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).

Roland

Rob Stow
April 10th 04, 03:37 AM
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
>> It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
>> enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
>> 640x480 or 800x600.
>
> The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
> completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
> scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
> different), thus this statement is completely false.

Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some
gaming benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version
of that card in that same machine: same GPU running at the
same clock, same type and amount of RAM at the same speed.
Note that the benchmarks are very nearly identical at low resolutions,
but the AGP card edges ahead at higher resolutions.


> The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
> nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
> lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card

You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI
comparison was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of
RAM on the card. How then do you explain that the PCI version
of the card keeps up with the AGP version until higher
resolutions are reached ?

> (high-end
> graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
> but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
> loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).

Try out a Quadro 400 NVS. For best results you apparently
need to use it in a 64 bit/66 MHz slot instead of just a
32 bit/33 MHz slot. I saw someone demo one of those in
Calgary last fall. He did a few CAD/rendering demonstrations
and it seemed pretty impressive to me.



>
> Roland

Psi-Tau Paladin
April 10th 04, 01:46 PM
Piotr Makley > wrote in news:[email protected]
130.133.1.4:

> Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card
> for AGP?

They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore.

Psi-Tau Paladin
April 10th 04, 03:54 PM
Piotr Makley > wrote in news:[email protected]
130.133.1.4:

> Although OCI graphics cards may be going up in price --- is that
> from a base price which is lower or highter that the price of AGP
> graphics cards?
They were still cheaper about 2 or so years ago and they were equal about
last year due to supply. At this point in time I would say that most
cards in the pci version will cost more than the equivilant AGP version
due to limited supply. Of course there will always be places trying to
get rid of stock.

i.e.
http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/cp_111601_brand_pny.html

PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 PCI (128 MB) = 69 pounds
PNY Verto GeForce FX 5200 Ultra AGP (128 MB) = 60 pounds

Pine XFX MX 400 PCI (64 MB) = 36 pounds
Pine XFX MX 400 AGP (64 MB) = 27 pounds

Roland Scheidegger
April 10th 04, 04:23 PM
Rob Stow wrote:
>> The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
>> completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do
>> not scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data
>> transfered different), thus this statement is completely false.
>
>
> Do a simple test: put a Radeon 9200 in a PCI slot. Run some gaming
> benchmarks. Repeat the benchmarks with an AGP version of that card
> in that same machine: same GPU running at the same clock, same type
> and amount of RAM at the same speed. Note that the benchmarks are
> very nearly identical at low resolutions, but the AGP card edges
> ahead at higher resolutions.
This is simply not true at all. If you did test this, you likely didn't
use identical cards - for instance you might have got the 64bit memory
interface version of the 9200 (afaik only hercules produces a 128bit pci
version) which is only about half as fast (and at lower resolutions
could still keep up if your game is cpu limited).
There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and
resolution just doesn't matter.
Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of
local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is
unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much
memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those
low-end cards).

>
> You missed in my previous post that my original AGP vs PCI comparison
> was for a Radeon 9200 - same GPU, same amount of RAM on the card.
> How then do you explain that the PCI version of the card keeps up
> with the AGP version until higher resolutions are reached ?
Since it's just not true, I don't need an explanation ;-)

Roland

Roland Scheidegger
April 10th 04, 04:45 PM
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> There were lots of comparisons between AGP and PCI when AGP was new, and
> resolution just doesn't matter.
> Resolution COULD make a difference, but only if you're running out of
> local graphic memory because of the higher resolution - but this is
> unlikely to happen, since the z/frame/back buffer don't use that much
> memory (if you're not using FSAA which you can't really use with those
> low-end cards).

Here's a recent test, and you can actually see that the difference gets
SMALLER between pci and agp with higher resolution (which actually is
expected, since the same amount of geometry data is transfered, but the
card has to work harder thus lower framerates, and the difference is
quite small to begin with at 800x600 and non-existant at higher
resolutions (compare the club3d lp and sapphire pci 64MB card, those
have same clocks, both 64bit memory interface, though the pci card has
only 64MB while the agp card has 128MB).
http://www.ati-news.de/HTML/Berichte/Sapphire/R9200-PCI/Sapphire-R9200-PCI-Seite5.shtml
(btw forget the aquamark results, this test definitely penalizes cards
with less ram, the 3dmark01 results though show that there is indeed a
difference between pci and agp cards - but again, the difference does
not grow with higher resolution).

Roland

Rob Stow
April 10th 04, 06:03 PM
Psi-Tau Paladin wrote:
> Piotr Makley > wrote in news:[email protected]
> 130.133.1.4:
>
>
>>Are PCI graphics cards more or less expensive than the same card
>>for AGP?
>
>
> They are going up in price since not many people make them anymore.

It depends on the card. Most PCI cards *are* more expensive
than the AGP version of the same card, but for the Radeon 9200
the prices are about the same.

I suspect the reason is that the PCI version of the Radeon 9200
is selling like hotcakes. Hence better economies of scale come
into play for the manufacturer and their is more competition
among the vendors. This card is selling *very* well to people
who have integrated video and no AGP slot.

It is also a good card for people who already have a dual monitor
AGP card and want a cheap upgrade to a quad-display system. The PCI
Radeon 9200 plays nicely together with all of the AGP Radeon
8xxx and 9xxx cards.

Roland Scheidegger
April 10th 04, 11:06 PM
Piotr Makley wrote:
> Roland, I am getting confused following this thread.
>
> Are you saying that there is very little difference between the
> same PCI and AGP graphics cards?

Yes, if the cards are otherwise identical.
(And keep in mind only low-end cards are available for pci, with
high-end cards which are much, much faster today you'd see more difference.)

Roland

Michael
April 13th 04, 04:21 AM
But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video
cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more
expensive than similar AGP based video cards?

"Roland Scheidegger" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Stow wrote:
> > A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
> > It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
> > enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
> > 640x480 or 800x600.
> The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
> completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
> scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
> different), thus this statement is completely false.
> The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
> nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
> lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end
> graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
> but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
> loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).
>
> Roland

Rob Stow
April 13th 04, 07:53 AM
Michael wrote:

> But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based video
> cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much more
> expensive than similar AGP based video cards?

No, the Radeon 9200's and 9200SE's are very similarly
priced for the AGP and PCI versions - and at some
vendors they have *exactly* the same price.

For example, about five weeks ago I bought four
128 MB ATI Radeon 9200 PCI cards for $139.95 each
at FutureShop (Canadian electronics store chain).
The AGP version of the card at that store had exactly
the same price.



>
> "Roland Scheidegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>>A standard 32 bit/33 MHz PCI bus compares well with AGP 1x.
>>>It has more than enough bandwidth for 2D work and is good
>>>enough for 3D games if you are playing at a low res like
>>>640x480 or 800x600.
>>
>>The amount of data transfered to the graphic card in 3d games is
>>completely independant of the resolution, since typically games do not
>>scale geometry details (which would make the amount of data transfered
>>different), thus this statement is completely false.
>>The reason PCI graphics cards are too slow at higher resolutions has
>>nothing to do with the pci bus itself, but simply because only
>>lowest-end graphic chips are available compared to AGP card (high-end
>>graphic chips would definitely be limited by the pci bus in newer games,
>>but you could easily crank up resolution as much as you'd wanted without
>>loosing performance if such pci cards would exist).
>>
>>Roland
>
>
>

Roland Scheidegger
April 13th 04, 03:41 PM
Rob Stow wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based
>> video
>> cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much
>> more
>> expensive than similar AGP based video cards?
>
>
> No, the Radeon 9200's and 9200SE's are very similarly
> priced for the AGP and PCI versions - and at some
> vendors they have *exactly* the same price.
>
> For example, about five weeks ago I bought four
> 128 MB ATI Radeon 9200 PCI cards for $139.95 each
> at FutureShop (Canadian electronics store chain).
> The AGP version of the card at that store had exactly
> the same price.

Are you sure though the PCI cards have a 128bit memory interface? AFAIK
PCI cards always have the name "9200" and not "9200SE" even if in fact
sometimes they only have the 64bit interface (you can see it easily, if
they have only 4 (tsop) memory chips in total, then they have a 64bit
memory interface).
And of course these 9200 cards are not exactly "up to date", they might
not be that old but the technology is rather outdated.

Roland

Yoyoma_2
April 13th 04, 06:21 PM
Roland Scheidegger wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> But hasn't ATI continued to build/release up to date Radeon cpu based
>>> video
>>> cards? They're pretty high tech? OTOH, the PCI Radeon cards are much
>>> more
>>> expensive than similar AGP based video cards?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, the Radeon 9200's and 9200SE's are very similarly
>> priced for the AGP and PCI versions - and at some
>> vendors they have *exactly* the same price.
>>
>> For example, about five weeks ago I bought four
>> 128 MB ATI Radeon 9200 PCI cards for $139.95 each
>> at FutureShop (Canadian electronics store chain).
>> The AGP version of the card at that store had exactly
>> the same price.
>
>
> Are you sure though the PCI cards have a 128bit memory interface? AFAIK
> PCI cards always have the name "9200" and not "9200SE" even if in fact
> sometimes they only have the 64bit interface (you can see it easily, if
> they have only 4 (tsop) memory chips in total, then they have a 64bit
> memory interface).
> And of course these 9200 cards are not exactly "up to date", they might
> not be that old but the technology is rather outdated.

Umm you can make a 128bit interface by just moving it twice rather than
once. The PCI bus doesn't support 128bit wide datatransfers anyway so
you just write twice. Another reason why AGP rules :)

Though i would still like to see a dual AGP system one day.

Rob Stow
April 13th 04, 07:08 PM
Piotr Makley wrote:
> Yoyoma_2 > wrote:
>>
>>Though i would still like to see a dual AGP system one day.
>
> Do you mean to say that there are almost no dual monitor AGP
> graphics cards?

There are many, many, dual monitor AGP cards out there -
it has almost become the standard for AGP cards.

Hence I took her (his?) remark as intending to convey a
desire for a machine with more than one AGP slot, to
which the answer is, "Forget it - it ain't going to happen."
Especially now with PCI-Express just around the corner.

Stephan Grossklass
April 13th 04, 07:48 PM
Yoyoma_2 schrieb:
>
> Roland Scheidegger wrote:
>
> > Are you sure though the PCI cards have a 128bit memory interface? AFAIK
> > PCI cards always have the name "9200" and not "9200SE" even if in fact
> > sometimes they only have the 64bit interface (you can see it easily, if
> > they have only 4 (tsop) memory chips in total, then they have a 64bit
> > memory interface).
>
> Umm you can make a 128bit interface by just moving it twice rather than
> once. The PCI bus doesn't support 128bit wide datatransfers anyway so
> you just write twice. Another reason why AGP rules :)

Ahem. Roland was not referring to the system-to-graphics-card interface,
but the card's own memory interface. Apart from this, your first
statement is just plain wrong. Some graphics card basics may not hurt...

Stephan
--
Meine Andere Seite: http://stephan.win31.de/
PC#6: i440BX, 1xP3-500E, 512 MiB, 18+80 GB, R9k AGP 64 MiB, 110W
This is a SCSI-inside, Legacy-plus, TCPA-free computer :)
Mail to From: not read, see homepg. | Real gelesene Mailadr. s. Homep.

Yoyoma_2
April 13th 04, 07:53 PM
Piotr Makley wrote:

> Yoyoma_2 > wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you sure though the PCI cards have a 128bit memory
>>>interface? AFAIK PCI cards always have the name "9200" and
>>>not "9200SE" even if in fact sometimes they only have the
>>>64bit interface (you can see it easily, if they have only 4
>>>(tsop) memory chips in total, then they have a 64bit memory
>>>interface). And of course these 9200 cards are not exactly
>>>"up to date", they might not be that old but the technology
>>>is rather outdated.
>>
>>Umm you can make a 128bit interface by just moving it twice
>>rather than once. The PCI bus doesn't support 128bit wide
>>datatransfers anyway so you just write twice. Another reason
>>why AGP rules :)
>>
>>Though i would still like to see a dual AGP system one day.
>
>
>
> Do you mean to say that there are almost no dual monitor AGP
> graphics cards?

No i mean there are almost no boards with dual AGP slots where you can
add a 2 quad monitor AGP cards if you want :)

Yoyoma_2
April 13th 04, 07:56 PM
Rob Stow wrote:

> Piotr Makley wrote:
>
>> Yoyoma_2 > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Though i would still like to see a dual AGP system one day.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean to say that there are almost no dual monitor AGP graphics
>> cards?
>
>
> There are many, many, dual monitor AGP cards out there -
> it has almost become the standard for AGP cards.
>
> Hence I took her (his?) remark as intending to convey a
> desire for a machine with more than one AGP slot, to
> which the answer is, "Forget it - it ain't going to happen."
> Especially now with PCI-Express just around the corner.

Yeah i clarified that in another post. The original intent was because
PCI-66mhz is still pretty slow, especially when handling large data.
PCI-X is really good but your right its not adopted yet. But what would
prevent a dual AGP slot motherboard? It could be usefull when trying to
render high-performance simulations that are sectioned. Though i don't
know if the bus supports it.

From what i know, PCI-X still won't have the same kind of access that
the AGP card has, like having to go through a PCI bridge, direct access
to memory with textures etc...

Yoyoma_2
April 13th 04, 08:00 PM
Yoyoma_2 wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> Piotr Makley wrote:
>>
>>> Yoyoma_2 > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though i would still like to see a dual AGP system one day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean to say that there are almost no dual monitor AGP graphics
>>> cards?
>>
>>
>>
>> There are many, many, dual monitor AGP cards out there -
>> it has almost become the standard for AGP cards.
>>
>> Hence I took her (his?) remark as intending to convey a
>> desire for a machine with more than one AGP slot, to
>> which the answer is, "Forget it - it ain't going to happen."
>> Especially now with PCI-Express just around the corner.
>
>
> Yeah i clarified that in another post. The original intent was because
> PCI-66mhz is still pretty slow, especially when handling large data.
> PCI-X is really good but your right its not adopted yet. But what would
> prevent a dual AGP slot motherboard? It could be usefull when trying to
> render high-performance simulations that are sectioned. Though i don't
> know if the bus supports it.
>
> From what i know, PCI-X still won't have the same kind of access that
> the AGP card has, like having to go through a PCI bridge, direct access
> to memory with textures etc...

sorry forgot a "not" somewhere. like NOT having to go through a pci bridge.

Roland Scheidegger
April 13th 04, 08:48 PM
Yoyoma_2 wrote:
> Yeah i clarified that in another post. The original intent was
> because PCI-66mhz is still pretty slow, especially when handling
> large data. PCI-X is really good but your right its not adopted yet.
> But what would prevent a dual AGP slot motherboard? It could be
> usefull when trying to render high-performance simulations that are
> sectioned. Though i don't know if the bus supports it.
Don't confuse PCI-X with PCI-Express. PCI-X is just an extension of PCI
and well adopted (in the server market). PCI-X might die together with
PCI and be replaced with PCI-Express though I guess it will take some
time (those markets don't adopt new standards fast).

> From what i know, PCI-X still won't have the same kind of access that
> the AGP card has, like having not to go through a PCI bridge, direct
> access to memory with textures etc...

I don't think PCI-Express will miss any features which might make it
slower than AGP (PCI-X possibly yes, but then again I don't think PCI-X
graphic cards exist). And AGP isn't really all that different from PCI
anyway (AGP1x was basically just PCI-66 (32bit), in fact on the good old
bx chipset the agp port can be used as PCI-66 instead - of course the
board manufacturer has to decide that).