A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Ati Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

how important is AGP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st 03, 09:28 AM
zlo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default how important is AGP

I am only capable of 4x agp with a 9700 pro. If i had a mb capable of 8x,
would i see a difference in performance and framerates?

Also, would going from 266(133DDR) fsb to an intel running at 800 make a big
difference in performance? How important is FSB speed?

Ok one more dumbass question to end the night.. I am confused.. amd boards
run at 400 fsb at the moment right? and intel has one that is 800mhz fsb.
does that necassarily mean the intel board is twice as fast?


  #2  
Old October 21st 03, 09:57 AM
Andrew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:28:00 GMT, "zlo" wrote:

I am only capable of 4x agp with a 9700 pro. If i had a mb capable of 8x,
would i see a difference in performance and framerates?

Hardly any. Most games will load in the textures required in the game
at the start of the level, so it will have little to no difference
while playing a game.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
  #3  
Old October 21st 03, 10:08 AM
Inglo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10/21/2003 1:28 AM zlo befouled our nation with:

I am only capable of 4x agp with a 9700 pro. If i had a mb capable of 8x,
would i see a difference in performance and framerates?



nope, really not at all nothing different, well you might see something
statistically insignificant.

Also, would going from 266(133DDR) fsb to an intel running at 800 make a big
difference in performance? How important is FSB speed?



yep, very

Ok one more dumbass question to end the night.. I am confused.. amd boards
run at 400 fsb at the moment right? and intel has one that is 800mhz fsb.
does that necassarily mean the intel board is twice as fast?



nope

Intel and AMD are both using 200 MHz FSB, its the "effective" numbers
they're confusing you with, i.e. DDR and quad-pipelining multipliers.
The best Intels are faster than the best AMDs right now though, and an
"800 MHz" Intel board's memory will benchmark higher than a VIA or
nForce2 400 MHz board by a good margin of bandwidth. But the overall
performance isn't as divergent. The best bang for your buck is still
the XP 2500+, which can be had for ~$80 USD.

--
"I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all I wanted was a club sandwich."

Steve [Inglo]

  #4  
Old October 21st 03, 10:40 AM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

zlo wrote:
I am only capable of 4x agp with a 9700 pro. If i had a mb capable of 8x,
would i see a difference in performance and framerates?


I doubt it.

Also, would going from 266(133DDR) fsb to an intel running at 800 make a
big difference in performance? How important is FSB speed?


If you did that with the FSB and left all else equal, you would see an
improvement. The difficulty is in saying how much... it depends how memory
bandwidth limited your application is.

Ok one more dumbass question to end the night.. I am confused.. amd boards
run at 400 fsb at the moment right? and intel has one that is 800mhz fsb.
does that necassarily mean the intel board is twice as fast?


Lets straighten this out.

Fastest Athlon XP FSB is 200MHz DDR, which is 400M transfers per second
(tps).
Fastest P4 System Bus is 200MHz Quad Pumped, which is 800M tps.

Now, just because it's theoretically possible to transfer twice as much data
in the same time down equivelent buses, doesn't mean that the processor is
necessarily capable of that - it's not a linear relationship, the efficiency
(the amount you can actually get across the bus under normal circumstances,
as a proportion of the total) tends to drop off as the FSB speed approaches
the clock speed. Much more important than that however, is the fact that
memory bandwidth is rarely the determining factor on maximum speed in most
applications. The only one I can think of, is a memory benchmark.

So how much difference that doubling will make is completely dependant on
the application. I could write a 10 line C program that acesses memory a
few times at the start and never again, and will scale linearly with CPU
clock speed, memory bandwidth won't affect the time at all. Conversely I
could write a 10 line C program that scales linearly with memory bandwidth
and CPU speed will be irrelevant. But neither of those applications are
"typical", they would be written merely to prove a point.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #5  
Old October 21st 03, 02:31 PM
Cosmic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So increasing your ram on your MB would give you better performance? How
much ram is too much ram? Thanks for any info...

"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...
zlo wrote:
I am only capable of 4x agp with a 9700 pro. If i had a mb capable of

8x,
would i see a difference in performance and framerates?


I doubt it.

Also, would going from 266(133DDR) fsb to an intel running at 800 make a
big difference in performance? How important is FSB speed?


If you did that with the FSB and left all else equal, you would see an
improvement. The difficulty is in saying how much... it depends how

memory
bandwidth limited your application is.

Ok one more dumbass question to end the night.. I am confused.. amd

boards
run at 400 fsb at the moment right? and intel has one that is 800mhz

fsb.
does that necassarily mean the intel board is twice as fast?


Lets straighten this out.

Fastest Athlon XP FSB is 200MHz DDR, which is 400M transfers per second
(tps).
Fastest P4 System Bus is 200MHz Quad Pumped, which is 800M tps.

Now, just because it's theoretically possible to transfer twice as much

data
in the same time down equivelent buses, doesn't mean that the processor is
necessarily capable of that - it's not a linear relationship, the

efficiency
(the amount you can actually get across the bus under normal

circumstances,
as a proportion of the total) tends to drop off as the FSB speed

approaches
the clock speed. Much more important than that however, is the fact that
memory bandwidth is rarely the determining factor on maximum speed in most
applications. The only one I can think of, is a memory benchmark.

So how much difference that doubling will make is completely dependant on
the application. I could write a 10 line C program that acesses memory a
few times at the start and never again, and will scale linearly with CPU
clock speed, memory bandwidth won't affect the time at all. Conversely I
could write a 10 line C program that scales linearly with memory bandwidth
and CPU speed will be irrelevant. But neither of those applications are
"typical", they would be written merely to prove a point.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...




  #6  
Old October 21st 03, 03:30 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cosmic wrote:
So increasing your ram on your MB would give you better performance?


That question appears to be about quantity as opposed to speed. The answer
is yes, if you need it.

How much ram is too much ram? Thanks for any info...


You can never have too much RAM. There's little point in purchasing more
than you regularly use, however. In my opinion, most people will get away
quite happily with 256MBs these days. The gamers and most developers should
have 512MB. Hardcore gamers and developers should have a 1GB. Any more is
rarely needed on a desktop PC. Servers tend to different in that
performance can be gained all over the place with more RAM (for example,
they can cache more/larger files that will be used more regularly). Thats a
very simple guideline.

To find peak RAM useage since you powered on... go to Task Manager -
Peformance and look at Peak Commit Charge.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #7  
Old October 21st 03, 04:12 PM
Joe727
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Inglo" wrote in message
. ..
snip
The best bang for your buck is still
the XP 2500+, which can be had for ~$80 USD.

Steve [Inglo]


Is this the Barton core chip you are referring to? If so, why is this the
CPU to get? I see a lot of praise about it, but I am not sure why.

Right now I am running an Athlon XP 2000+ Palomino core chip on an MSI
KT3-Ultra2 motherboard.

Thanks

Joe


  #8  
Old October 21st 03, 04:28 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe727 wrote:
Is this the Barton core chip you are referring to? If so, why is this the
CPU to get? I see a lot of praise about it, but I am not sure why.


I'll give you 3 good reasons:
1) Because for any given clock speed, the Barton is the fastest core.
2) That Barton is one of the fastest clocking cores available.
3) The 2500+ is the cheapest CPU with the Barton core.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


  #9  
Old October 21st 03, 05:16 PM
Skid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ben Pope" wrote in message
...
Joe727 wrote:
Is this the Barton core chip you are referring to? If so, why is this

the
CPU to get? I see a lot of praise about it, but I am not sure why.


I'll give you 3 good reasons:
1) Because for any given clock speed, the Barton is the fastest core.
2) That Barton is one of the fastest clocking cores available.
3) The 2500+ is the cheapest CPU with the Barton core.


Good list. The main reason for #1 is CACHE. Assuming equal fsb and clock
speed:

The K6-3 is faster than the K6-2 because of cache. The Pentium is faster
than the Celeron because of cache. The Athlon is faster than the Duron
because of cache. The Barton is faster than the XP because of cache.

System memory is pretty fast these days, but cache is still a lot faster.


  #10  
Old October 21st 03, 05:18 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skid wrote:
Good list. The main reason for #1 is CACHE. Assuming equal fsb and clock
speed:


The only reason is Cache. More cache - greater hit ratio - better
performance.

System memory is pretty fast these days, but cache is still a lot faster.


Indeed.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Important is Chipset Speed? Etno Homebuilt PC's 8 January 21st 04 12:48 AM
Placement of the PSU is this important for cooling ? We Live For The One We Die For The One Asus Motherboards 0 January 18th 04 03:08 PM
Placement of the PSU is this important for cooling ? We Live For The One We Die For The One Homebuilt PC's 0 January 18th 04 03:06 PM
Placement of the PSU is this important for cooling ? We Live For The One We Die For The One Overclocking 0 January 18th 04 03:06 PM
matching fsb/bus/ram speeds important? Cermo Homebuilt PC's 2 August 17th 03 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.