PDA

View Full Version : X8 AGP support


ritch
August 20th 04, 10:25 PM
I have just got a 6800 GT and installed it into an asus p4pe motherboard,
very pleased with the jump in performance. The only thing is i read this
card can use x8 agp but this motherboard only goes up to x4, is there that
bigger difference between these standards, should i think about going for a
motherboard that supports x8

cheers
ritch

Spajky
August 20th 04, 11:12 PM
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:25:51 +0000 (UTC), "ritch"
> wrote:

>I have just got a 6800 GT and installed it into an asus p4pe motherboard,
>very pleased with the jump in performance. The only thing is i read this
>card can use x8 agp but this motherboard only goes up to x4, is there that
>bigger difference between these standards, should i think about going for a
>motherboard that supports x8

there is no practical difference, just marketing ... :-)
--
Regards, SPAJKY ®
& visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
"Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

DaveW
August 21st 04, 12:32 AM
You are only getting 50% of the possible data transfer rate by using 4x.

--
DaveW



"ritch" > wrote in message
...
> I have just got a 6800 GT and installed it into an asus p4pe motherboard,
> very pleased with the jump in performance. The only thing is i read this
> card can use x8 agp but this motherboard only goes up to x4, is there that
> bigger difference between these standards, should i think about going for
a
> motherboard that supports x8
>
> cheers
> ritch
>
>

PRIVATE1964
August 21st 04, 03:30 AM
>You are only getting 50% of the possible data transfer rate by using 4x.
>
>--
>DaveW
>
>

Technically true, but there are no games that even stress 4X including Doom3.
So there is very little speed difference between 4X or 8X.

Augustus
August 21st 04, 04:18 AM
"DaveW" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...
> You are only getting 50% of the possible data transfer rate by using 4x.
>

Less than 1-2% performance difference in any real or synthetic bench from 4X
to 8X.

J. Clarke
August 21st 04, 04:26 AM
DaveW wrote:

> You are only getting 50% of the possible data transfer rate by using 4x.

****ing into a 4 inch pipe or ****ing in an 8 inch pipe there is no
difference in the flow rate.

Nice to see DaveW, after a brief spate of rational behavior, is back to
being reliably wrong.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

PRIVATE1964
August 21st 04, 05:36 AM
>Nice to see DaveW, after a brief spate of rational behavior, is back to
>being reliably wrong.

I bet I could fill that 8 inch pipe with my flow rate after a few quarts of
beer, but normally the 4 inch pipe would be fine.
Technically he answered correctly.
Is the all the bandwith of 8X being used yet no, 4X..........Hmmmmmm no but the
bandwith is still there if ever needed.

J. Clarke
August 21st 04, 04:26 PM
PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>Nice to see DaveW, after a brief spate of rational behavior, is back to
>>being reliably wrong.
>
> I bet I could fill that 8 inch pipe with my flow rate after a few quarts
> of beer, but normally the 4 inch pipe would be fine.
> Technically he answered correctly.
> Is the all the bandwith of 8X being used yet no, 4X..........Hmmmmmm no
> but the bandwith is still there if ever needed.

However, in practical terms there is no video board or processor on the
market today that will show noticeably better peformance at 8x than at 4x,
so his answer is misleading and not terribly useful information.

As for its "being there if ever needed", unless PCI Express falls flat on
its face there is never going to be an AGP board with a bandwidth
requirement exceeding AGP 4X--future development (according to Intel's
marketing plan anyway) is going to move to PCI Express with AGP gradually
fading away.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

PRIVATE1964
August 21st 04, 11:14 PM
>so his answer is misleading and not terribly useful information.

Technically correct though, and I don't think it was his intention to be
misleading or to offer useless information.


>As for its "being there if ever needed", unless PCI Express falls flat on
>its face there is never going to be an AGP board with a bandwidth
>requirement exceeding AGP 4X--future development (according to Intel's
>marketing plan anyway) is going to move to PCI Express with AGP gradually
>fading away.
>


How can you say?

What determines the actual bandwith of the AGP slot?

The video card + CPU = actual bandwith?

I saw a compare of PCI Express 16x compared to 8X AGP. Just about all the tests
AGP was slightly faster or even.

J. Clarke
August 22nd 04, 07:03 AM
PRIVATE1964 wrote:

>>so his answer is misleading and not terribly useful information.
>
> Technically correct though, and I don't think it was his intention to be
> misleading or to offer useless information.

Review his posting history. Despite being called on it dozens if not
hundreds of times, he still repeatedly posts that the Radeon 9500 and 9700
are not DirectX compatible.

>>As for its "being there if ever needed", unless PCI Express falls flat on
>>its face there is never going to be an AGP board with a bandwidth
>>requirement exceeding AGP 4X--future development (according to Intel's
>>marketing plan anyway) is going to move to PCI Express with AGP gradually
>>fading away.
>>
>
>
> How can you say?

How can I say what? That AGP is going away? Well, none of the latest
generation of Intel chipsets support AGP, and as Intel goes, so goes the
industry, so it won't be long before there are no more motherboards with
AGP slots being produced.

> What determines the actual bandwith of the AGP slot?
>
> The video card + CPU = actual bandwith?
>
> I saw a compare of PCI Express 16x compared to 8X AGP. Just about all the
> tests AGP was slightly faster or even.

And if you saw that same comparison with 4X AGP thrown in then you would
have seen that AGP 4X, AGP 8X, and PCI Express 16x, with any hardware that
is currently available for purchase, all show the same performance, because
the bus is not the bottleneck.

When at some time in the future there is hardware for which the AGP 4X bus
would have been the bottleneck, that hardware will not be available with an
AGP interface because AGP is going to be discontinued by that time.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

PRIVATE1964
August 22nd 04, 11:43 PM
>Review his posting history. Despite being called on it dozens if not
>hundreds of times, he still repeatedly posts that the Radeon 9500 and 9700
>are not DirectX compatible.

I must have missed his other posts.

>How can I say what? That AGP is going away? Well, none of the latest
>generation of Intel chipsets support AGP, and as Intel goes, so goes the
>industry, so it won't be long before there are no more motherboards with
>AGP slots being produced.

I meant AGP 8X not being around in the near future. You made it seem like
tomorrow 8X would be obsolete. I think "existing" 8X AGP will be enough for a
while. That's what I meant by "being there if you need it."



>And if you saw that same comparison with 4X AGP thrown in then you would
>have seen that AGP 4X, AGP 8X, and PCI Express 16x, with any hardware that
>is currently available for purchase, all show the same performance, because
>the bus is not the bottleneck.

If the bus is not the bottleneck, then why bother making it faster?


>When at some time in the future there is hardware for which the AGP 4X bus
>would have been the bottleneck, that hardware will not be available with an
>AGP interface because AGP is going to be discontinued by that time.
>

I agree, but if we haven't seen that happen yet with even 4X....will we ever
have hardware to stress even 8X?

Chris
August 23rd 04, 10:03 AM
"ritch" > wrote in message
...
> I have just got a 6800 GT and installed it into an asus p4pe motherboard,
> very pleased with the jump in performance. The only thing is i read this
> card can use x8 agp but this motherboard only goes up to x4, is there that
> bigger difference between these standards, should i think about going for
a
> motherboard that supports x8
>

i just upgraded from my old geforce 3ti200 agp 4x to and fx5700 8x card

ran the latest furture mark 3dmark benchmark and it came out at 2400
something, noticed that the card was only running at agp 4x because i didn't
have the right drivers installed, sorted that out and then the card was
running at 8x , reran benchmarks and got a score of 2500 something, so not a
major jump

only big jump was in the cpu tests, the score doubled! , didn't seem to
affect "3d" video output much tho

hth

Chris

Eric Witte
August 23rd 04, 03:56 PM
> i just upgraded from my old geforce 3ti200 agp 4x to and fx5700 8x card
>
> ran the latest furture mark 3dmark benchmark and it came out at 2400
> something, noticed that the card was only running at agp 4x because i didn't
> have the right drivers installed, sorted that out and then the card was
> running at 8x , reran benchmarks and got a score of 2500 something, so not a
> major jump
>
> only big jump was in the cpu tests, the score doubled! , didn't seem to
> affect "3d" video output much tho
>
> hth
>
> Chris

With a more powerful card those drivers make a huge difference. I got
a good 25-35% increase in 3dmark2001,3dmark2003 and Aquamark with my
6800GT.

Aquamark3 before 37700, after 57500
3dmark2003 before 8500, after 11500
3dmark2001 before 14500, after 17250

Eric