# AGP, PCI-E, PCI?  Differences?



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 6, 2009)

I am just curious , how fast is AGP compared to PCI? 
Not looking at wikipedia or looking around, i am asking people from experience. Say for example, 

If i use a 2400HD AGP card the 512MB vs a ATI 2400 256MB PCI card, how much faster in performance or in general would the 2400HD agp version be over the 2400HD PCI?
Thats a example. 

On another question, how good is AGP in general.?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP shits all over PCI, but you just cant get modern cards in AGP, therefore PCI-E craps all over AGP through no fault of its own.

the AGP card will be a lot faster - the PCI bus is just too slow for 3D cards of any variety.


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 6, 2009)

pci = 33 MHz
AGP = 66 MHz

It's not twice as fast but more. To consider an upgrade i would jump to PCI-E.


----------



## X-Terminator (Mar 6, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I am just curious , how fast is AGP compared to PCI?
> Not looking at wikipedia or looking around, i am asking people from experience. Say for example,
> 
> If i use a 2400HD AGP card the 512MB vs a ATI 2400 256MB PCI card, how much faster in performance or in general would the 2400HD agp version be over the 2400HD PCI?
> ...



I'm pretty sure he means PCIe Not PCI, because they don't make the 2400HD in PCI.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP is NOT worth it at all nowadays. Just get a cheap 50$ 740G motherboard and a Athlon X2 if you really want to upgrade.



X-Terminator said:


> I'm pretty sure he means PCIe Not PCI, because they don't make the 2400HD in PCI.



No he is talking PCI and they do make HD 2400 PCI


----------



## X-Terminator (Mar 6, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> AGP is NOT worth it at all nowadays. Just get a cheap 50$ 740G motherboard and a Athlon X2 if you really want to upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> No he is talking PCI and they do make HD 2400 PCI



sorry about that u r right they do make it in PCI also with a Speed of 33 MHz

My bad


----------



## niko084 (Mar 6, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> pci = 33 MHz
> AGP = 66 MHz
> 
> It's not twice as fast but more. To consider an upgrade i would jump to PCI-E.



The Freq is not everything...

PCI-E 16x v3 - 16GB/s
PCI-E 16x v2 - 8GB/s
PCI-E 16x - 4GB/s
AGP 8x - 2.1GB/s
AGP 4x - 1.06GB/s
PCI - 133 MB/s

So, now that has been cleared...
If you want to upgrade to a AGP card, it very likely could be worth it if you are not facing a full upgrade in the near future.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

PCI is 33Mhz, 133MB/s  SHARED between all devices on the PCI bus (IDE, sound cards, etc)

AGP is 66Mhz but dont forget there is AGP 2x 4x and 8x (2.1GB/s as stated above)  - and its just the one device on the bus


PCI-E is 100MHz, but as we know its got 1x (125MB/s) 4x 8x and 16x. PCI-E devices dont share bandwidth, so they dont have the same problem as PCI. PCI-E is bi-directional as well, so if its 125MB/s, thats means BOTH ways can do 125MB/s at the same time.


----------



## 95Viper (Mar 6, 2009)

@Mussels> AGP is even more powerful...Quote from PCWorld AU article:"AGP has the ability to quadruple the theoretical bandwidth of current PCI buses, and has the potential to perform even higher. This increased performance is achieved by introducing a dedicated point-to-point channel that gives the graphics controller direct access to main system memory. In addition, the AGP channel is 32 bits wide and runs at 66MHz, which translates into a total bandwidth of 266MBps.

AGP also supports two fast modes, 2x and 4x, which have throughputs of 533MBps and 1.07GBps respectively. Features such as texturing and pipelining further enhance the graphics processing ability of AGP. Texturing, also called Direct Memory Execute mode, allows texture data to be stored in main memory. Pipelining is a process that enables the graphics card to send several instructions together instead of sending one at a time." @ http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/118661/pci_vs_agp

I learn-ed sumtin' toda...Durn Aussies know everything!


----------



## EiSFX (Mar 6, 2009)

whats funny in some instanstances when we were still useing PCI-E v1 and v1.1 the AGP counter parts like the X1950 pro and the 7800GS actully outperformed the PCI-E versions in most games but since PCI-E v2 thats not the case anymore so yes AGP is a crap load better then any PCI card


----------



## niko084 (Mar 6, 2009)

EiSFX said:


> whats funny in some instanstances when we were still useing PCI-E v1 and v1.1 the AGP counter parts like the X1950 pro and the 7800GS actully outperformed the PCI-E versions in most games but since PCI-E v2 thats not the case anymore so yes AGP is a crap load better then any PCI card



You are actually correct in that also, the AGP design is more efficient I guess you could say.
If they were to cross the technologies it would be great.
But- PCI-E v2 doesn't fix that issue, it just adds more bandwidth.

AGP is faster than PCI-E v1, v1.1, v2 or even v3 up until the point that bandwidth of the slot limits the card.

Now to top that off, good luck getting a C2D or Phenom with a AGP slot


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

the reason some AGP cards outperformed their PCI-E flavours was because they were still AGP cards, with a bridge chip to make them work in PCI-E. the bridge chip 'adaptor' caused some small slowdowns.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 6, 2009)

Well the reason i am asking is , not going to get into too much detail, but i will say 2 things. 

#1 I have made a decision to start back shopping online, things has change now. Newegg + postal money orders. So for future video cards i will shop at newegg for video cards. ( but i will still shop at best buy, walmart , only if i find a card for a good deal )

#2 I just bought a new computer today , it has 3.0 Ghz on it. (this is stock btw)

I will share the rest of the good news with everyone either tomorrow or later.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

niko084 said:


> The Freq is not everything...
> 
> *PCI-E 16x - 4GB/s
> AGP 8x - 2.1GB/s
> AGP 4x - 1.06GB/s*



*I will speak with facts , real facts ... * 

I own one of the perfect made AGP + CPU + modo , seeing it from the same view , as INTEL has plan it to be . 

The only software that can measure AGP bandwidth are the old FR demo.  

What is on the picture ....  its my current bandwidth  score with CAT 9.2  with Red color ,
and the CAT 8.12  with Green color . 

The deference between the drivers , as effect over the bandwidth are tremendous . 
Logically , i have to move back to CAT 8.12 .

Lets see the numbers as  AGP evaluation . 

The 3D score of one HD3850  OCED to 720/850 , looks to be as  690-700 Megabytes per second. 

Quick calculation  =  *three  HD3850  = 2.1GB Bandwith * 

*Conclusion = *
*1)* True AGP bandwith , has nothing to do with CPU scalling

*2)* I do not know the name or model of the card, that offers triple performance over the HD3850   ,  if i was , i would call it as maximum  or  ... end of the road for one AGP based board . 

*3)* If we think this facts totaly open minded , we will admit , that AGP was  blamed and removed by the silly marketing hypes , before its time . 

*4) *  i love my AGP system ,  even today , because still stands, very well.

Thanks you . 


.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

I wanna see this new P4 system of yours, is this gonna replace your P3 system

lol


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> *I will speak with facts , real facts ... *
> 
> I own one of the perfect made AGP + CPU + modo , seeing it from the same view , as INTEL has plan it to be .
> 
> ...



AGP was one slot per board, with an independant bus purely for video cards.

PCI and PCI-E are designed for anything you want, Video cards, RAID cards, network cards, sound cards.

AGP was also limited power-wise, i'm sure you wouldnt like the amount of connectors a modern card like an 8800GTX or 4870x2 would need, if it was still on AGP.

Oh and dont forget, without PCI-E theres no SLI or crossfire.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 6, 2009)

Sweet mother of god..u2 bought a new computer? I have to see pics to believe this even if it is a P4.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP is Pretty Strong when you compare Cards that are on both formats, aka 3850, 1950 Pro. My card beats out the 3650 and 2600XT series in just about all games. Now if you want you can max out the AGP with the 3850. My machine i would have to push the clocks a little higher to be able to utilize the 3850 Speeds (1.8 GHZ was bottlenecking the 1950 pro, OC to 2.2GHz no problems).

but to compare PCI express Slots, apparently PCI E 4 is the same as AGP 8X.

if you want a spare machine that is good at games, id suggest you build a new one first and use the old one as a secondary machine.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Mar 6, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Sweet mother of god..u2 bought a new computer? I have to see pics to believe this even if it is a P4.



 ya I wanna see it


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> I wanna see this new P4 system of yours, is this gonna replace your P3 system
> lol


I will scan it from my printer and upload some photos soon. I have to scan everything, no camera  How did you know i have a Pentium 4 tho? I said its 3.0ghz on it, at stock?  I always wanted a p4 anyway, just one step up above a p3 lol. I guess in 2030 i will buy a Intel Pentium Dual core  



xRevengEx said:


> Sweet mother of god..u2 bought a new computer? I have to see pics to believe this even if it is a P4.


Yea i have it lol, finally. I told y'all i was always looking. I just like to shop for those type of items in stores in my area, and i am very cheap. I only paid 50 dollars for it. But keep in mind, i am not on a budget. 



eidairaman1 said:


> if you want a spare machine that is good at games, id suggest you build a new one first and use the old one as a secondary machine.


No building, already bought one. But you are right, my p3 i will use as my secondary rig. And this new one, for my main rig. 

Anyways, i will report back soon with more information. 
peace


----------



## Error 404 (Mar 6, 2009)

RadeonX2 said:


> ya I wanna see it



Yup, especially one with "3 GHz on it". 
Simple comparison, for bandwidth: PCI-E x16 >> AGP >>>>> PCI
Price for card of bus type: PCI/AGP > PCI-E x16
Price of new motherboard supporting: AGP > PCI-E x16

If you want to get a new PC then it is really stupid to get a really cheap one with AGP and expect it to be cheaply upgradeable.
Go for something with current technology and it will be easily and cheaply upgradeable!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

Well then i suggest a 3850 To max out your machine as is, and if possible use 3 gigs of ram.


u2konline said:


> I will scan it from my printer and upload some photos soon. I have to scan everything, no camera  How did you know i have a Pentium 4 tho? I said its 3.0ghz on it, at stock?  I always wanted a p4 anyway, just one step up above a p3 lol. I guess in 2030 i will buy a Intel Pentium Dual core
> 
> 
> Yea i have it lol, finally. I told y'all i was always looking. I just like to shop for those type of items in stores in my area, and i am very cheap. I only paid 50 dollars for it. But keep in mind, i am not on a budget.
> ...


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

Error 404 said:


> Yup, especially one with "3 GHz on it".
> Simple comparison, for bandwidth: PCI-E x16 >> AGP >>>>> PCI
> Price for card of bus type: PCI/AGP > PCI-E x16
> Price of new motherboard supporting: AGP > PCI-E x16
> ...



he loves old stuff and there no way he would buy a HD3850 cause he likes old stuff

let him have fun with his old crap then


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP 8x is equal to PCI-E 4x, someone said that above.

dont forget that PCI-E 2.0 doubles the bandwidth, pushing AGP 8x to be equal to PCI-E 2.0 2x 

AGP was upgraded for reasons other than bandwidth, but hey, modern cards cna use that bandwidth.

I too want to see U2K's 'new' PC


----------



## _jM (Mar 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> he loves old stuff and there no way he would buy a HD3850 cause he likes old stuff
> 
> let him have fun with his old crap then



lol


To me... the 3850 *is* old news.... and he can get one pretty cheap nowadays.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

well the 3850 is the Fastest Card available, and it does perform the same as the PCI E variant.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

What i expect to see before i die, in 30 years or so ,
is one software to measure PCI-e bandwidth.

The results will be good for laughs , considering the fact,  that in order to use all the bandwidth,  the textures of the game , must have the size of an *elephant* . 


Dear PCI-e fanatics .... this message of my,  called as  " hard landing "  ..


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> AGP was one slot per board, with an independant bus purely for video cards.
> 
> PCI and PCI-E are designed for anything you want, Video cards, RAID cards, network cards, sound cards.
> 
> ...



1) Wow who needs  dual 6800GT  , when you can have one HD3850 

2) Why you need 4GB or more bandwidth for RAID , when your hard drives the most that can do is  80 - 120 megabytes /S  *both* . 

3)  I am done here ...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

They all say Theoretical Bandwidth, now certain boards will be quicker than others due to quality of components used, its all about moving electrons around along with DC waves.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> They all say Theoretical Bandwidth, now certain boards will be quicker than others *due to quality of components used*, its all about moving electrons around along with DC waves.



Thats true ,  exclude  Nvidia s chip sets , they do more harm than good.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

eh IDK, they are pretty good, and i was talking about motherboards not Graphics cards in general, I am using an NV Chipset with an AMD vid card.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

kiriakost: you obviously convinced yourself you're right, but are you aware this has been tested?

"who would go two 6600GT when they can have one 3850"
No idea. the 3850 is fairly weak in comparison to my 1 year old (and then some) video cards. you can buy faster for very little, in PCI-E

modern video cards most certainly were pushing the bandwidth required from PCI-E 1.0/1.1, particularly due to motherboards doing SLI and crossfire in 8x/8x configurations.

you can spout as many theories as you want, but until you actually have some proof of what you're saying, i doubt anyones going to beleive you. (And what you're saying seems to be "I'm still on AGP so AGP is awesome, hahaha im so glad i didnt spend money on PCI-E"


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

Mussles, its worth maxing out the AGP slot, but that is after building a new machine, For me Im going to move up and keep this machine as is because at the time the 1950 Pro was the fastest AGP card, no one was expecting AMD at the time to release the 3850 as an AGP part.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Mussles, its worth maxing out the AGP slot, but that is after building a new machine, For me Im going to move up and keep this machine as is because at the time the 1950 Pro was the fastest AGP card, no one was expecting AMD at the time to release the 3850 as an AGP part.



dont get me wrong, its not like i think AGP is useless, or incredibly slow. AGP has hit its limits with the 3850, and i just get annoyed at people who spout things with no proof of backup, when they contradict common thinking. If you want to change peoples minds, you need more than a theory.

all video cards in DX9.0c (and under) require the video cards ram to be synced with the system ram (it duplicates), therefore a slot needs to be as fast as the ram on the video card, to 'max out' its performance (odds are the GPU or something would hinder it before here, but you get the point), slap a GDDR5 card into an AGP slot and watch it choke, just like modern cards (HD2400, Nv 8400) do in PCI


----------



## r9 (Mar 6, 2009)

Putting  it simply every card that is made for AGP is as fast as PCIE counterpart. I`m talking for AGP X8.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

well i doubt AMD will be releasing anything faster than the 1950 or 3850, but it is sweet to see an AGP card take down a PCI Express card. News of Driver reduction (quarterly Driver releases instead of monthly for X1K and lower) I doubt anything will be faster, but since the OP is making the P4 his main machine, I dont see why not max out the Slot. For me I learned something on this machine, Project Torque Lags real bad with the CPU at 1.8 GHZ (133x14) I overclocked the System to 2.2GHz ~ 400 MHZ boost (200x11) and i had no more problems, it just proves that the CPU was the bottleneck for my setup). Now i probably wouldnt upgrade to a 3850 Unless if i could get this machine at 2.4 GHz or Higher Stabily (CPU is cool, Mobo isnt).


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> kiriakost: you obviously convinced yourself you're right, but are you aware this has been tested?
> 
> "who would go two 6600GT when they can have one 3850"
> No idea. the 3850 is fairly weak in comparison to my 1 year old (and then some) video cards. you can buy faster for very little, in PCI-E
> ...



Step down from the broom, its not a horse ,  i can teach you more ,
 if you are willing to learn .


----------



## Error 404 (Mar 6, 2009)

r9 said:


> Putting  it simply every card that is made for AGP is as fast as PCIE counterpart. I`m talking for AGP X8.



Not so; for example, the 7800 GT AGP is crippled by nVidia. It performs nowhere near as well as a PCI-E 7800 GTX.
Also, all nVidia cards since the 6x00 series have had to use an AGP - PCI-E bridge chip, because they were all native PCI-E cards. Theoretically, this would impact on performance due to the slight delay in converting AGP to PCI-E signal.

Also, kiriakost; The textures are not "as big as an elephant", they are comparatively small; there are just THOUSANDS of them, and they're not being loaded off of your hard drive, they're being transferred from your RAM to the PCI-E slot, so no hard drive bottlenecks from that except for when you are loading a level or something.

AGP is slow, but its not terribly slow. It is slow enough, however, to bottleneck many modern cards. Do you think a GTX 295 would perform as well as it could in an AGP slot compared to a PCI-E x16 2.0 slot? I think not!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

there was no 7800GTX AGP, there was 7800GS, Also on another Point, any card designed for the x16 slot (4850/4870, GF GTX 260/280 and higher) if you drop it in a PCI E 4x slot, the performance drop is considerable because some think PCI E 4x is AGP 8X. PCI E 8x and higher is what is need to not see a bottleneck for the fastest cards out.


----------



## Error 404 (Mar 6, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> there was no 7800GTX AGP, there was 7800GS



My mistake, it must'v been the GT.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

There was only 1 AGP 7 Series GT card for AGP and that was the XFX Only 7950GT. Everything else has been GS.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

the 7900GS in AGP could be unlocked to a GT through rivatuner, its probably why you're getting confused.

the PCI-E 7900GS couldnt be unlocked.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

Error 404 said:


> Also, kiriakost............... Do you think a GTX 295 would perform as well as it could in an AGP slot compared to a PCI-E x16 2.0 slot? I think not!



One card connected in transport channel , as the AGP ot PCIe, it does not perform ... it moves data.
If the channel is empty , as i clearly proved above about AGP bandwidth ...  
there is no issue at all , no matter how the channel are named .   

*Its like having a very small car , in a highway with 8 free lines ...  no problem . *

The point is that we still have small cars compared with the size of the highway ...
and no VGA , even the latest VGAs,  are still like small cars,  in comparison with the size of the highway .

This is the message , that i like to become , commonly  understood !!!


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

the 7950GT AGP was one of the worst cards I have Ever, EVER owned, should be avoided at all costs, they die like crazy


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 6, 2009)

Gen 1 X1950 Pro AGP from Sapphire were having Overheating Problems, It was blamed on QA of the cards, like heatsinks not fully attached even not contacting components, second Gen also as the 1950GT were perfectly fine (want to replace the fan on mine because its a bitch to clean)


----------



## Ketxxx (Mar 6, 2009)

I done a whitepaper for AGP and PCI-E, hers a copy and paste job from both;



> Originally designed for the Pentium 2 platform, the AGP bus has undergone a multitude of evolutionary steps beginning with just AGP 1x (266MB\s) and ended with 8x (2.1GB\s) using the PCI specification as an operational baseline, the AGP specification adds 20 additional signals not included in the PCI bus.
> 
> The aim of the AGP bus is to provide a much smoother framerate and 3D rendered image in a much higher detail level than previously seen before on the PCI or ISA bus standards of old. The AGP bus is able to transfer high amounts of data due to it being able to transfer on both the rising and falling edges of the 66MHz bus clock frequency. AGP allows for direct data transfer between the graphics card and the CPU and \ or system memory. Although AGP is an extension of the PCI interface, it is completely (physically, logically and electrically) separate from the PCI bus. Therefore, activity of PCI peripherals won't affect the AGP card's performance.
> 
> ...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Like Hypertransport technology, PCI-E is a 2-way serial connection that carries data in packets, similar to the way it is transferred over Ethernet connections.
> 
> The PCI-E bus is an assembly of serial, point-to-point wired, individually clocked “lanes”, each consisting of two pairs of data lines carrying data upstream and downstream. Each individual “lane” is capable of 250MB\s, giving a PCI-E x16 slot a theoretical maximum of 4GB\s bandwidth. Real performance benefits come in when more than one lane is added to a given point-to-point route. Lanes can be stacked together to increase the amount of bandwidth available to specific areas of the I/O system, such as the video card slot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> One card connected in transport channel , as the AGP ot PCIe, it does not perform ... it moves data.
> If the channel is empty , as i clearly proved above about AGP bandwidth ...
> there is no issue at all , no matter how the channel are named .
> 
> ...



you didnt prove anything, about 'AGP bandwidth' and modern cards being 'small cars'
you made some comment about hard drives not providing enough data to video cards, when in fact thats sytem ram that links to them.

Please CLEARLY state what it is you're trying to prove, in a coherent single post.


----------



## TechnicalFreak (Mar 6, 2009)

A friend of mine, his son has this HP system (core 2 duo), with 2 gig of ram and an PCI-E card.
The last system I had that I sold to another friend (P4 @ 3.0ghz) , he bought an HD2600Pro (agp)
and it gets more FPS in CS:S than the C2D system.. The C2D system if I remember it right has an PCI-E 4350 card. I installed the cards on both the systems. I thought the C2D was suppose to be faster, I installed the cards on both the systems. Now I feel that I did something wrong somewhere..


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 6, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> One card connected in transport channel , as the AGP ot PCIe, it does not perform ... it moves data.
> If the channel is empty , as i clearly proved above about AGP bandwidth ...
> there is no issue at all , no matter how the channel are named .
> 
> ...



So what your saying is that, the same card in agp against that in PCI-e would have the same performance ? If so then I disagree. I think if there was a GTX295 in an agp slot it would be crippled. I think I may be wrong here but check the memory bandwidth of this card and I think that is greater than what AGP can transfer. I'm probably wrong but I will at least learn something from this.







Oh and nice to see you got a new pc u2k. I expect you to max out cryis this time around.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

TechnicalFreak said:


> A friend of mine, his son has this HP system (core 2 duo), with 2 gig of ram and an PCI-E card.
> The last system I had that I sold to another friend (P4 @ 3.0ghz) , he bought an HD2600Pro (agp)
> and it gets more FPS in CS:S than the C2D system.. The C2D system if I remember it right has an PCI-E 4350 card. I installed the cards on both the systems. I thought the C2D was suppose to be faster, I installed the cards on both the systems. Now I feel that I did something wrong somewhere..



because a 4350 is slower than a 2600pro agp, and cs:s wasn't limited by the p4 he had


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 6, 2009)

TechnicalFreak said:


> A friend of mine, his son has this HP system (core 2 duo), with 2 gig of ram and an PCI-E card.
> The last system I had that I sold to another friend (P4 @ 3.0ghz) , he bought an HD2600Pro (agp)
> and it gets more FPS in CS:S than the C2D system.. The C2D system if I remember it right has an PCI-E 4350 card. I installed the cards on both the systems. I thought the C2D was suppose to be faster, I installed the cards on both the systems. Now I feel that I did something wrong somewhere..



A 2 gig C2D playing a single threaded game(meaning it only uses one core of your CPU) I would imagine wouldn't perform as a 3 gig P4. Also, that 2600pro is still a decent performer I believe(just going by what I've read on these forum and I maybe wrong) and I could believe being close to the 4350 performance wise. OC the C2D to around 2.5 and it'll beat the P4.

I'd also like to add this little tid bit of info given to me yesterday in a discussion I was having in another thread-



DarkMatter said:


> Man I was just kidding and just pointing out the fact that CSS is not precisely the measure that should be used to judge the performance of a modern card. There's no way you can guess Crysis performance out of CSS performance, because not only the performance on cards in CSS is not linear, but neither is coherent with the power of the cards when cards are overkill for the game. For example my 8800 GT does 200++ fps too, but I have seen other 8800GTs doing worse, but wait, that's not what I was talking about, in one of those same PCs, I've seen a 9600GT doing better fps's than the 8800GT did, both stock. That shouldn't happen, but it happens.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> because a 4350 is slower than a 2600pro agp, and cs:s wasn't limited by the p4 he had



modern low end doesnt mean its faster than old mid range.

its like comparing an 8200 vs a 7900GT, it just aint gunna match it any way, ever.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 6, 2009)

niko084 said:


> PCI-E 16x v3 - 16GB/s
> PCI-E 16x v2 - 8GB/s
> PCI-E 16x - 4GB/s
> AGP 8x - 2.1GB/s
> ...


PCI-X - 4266 MB/s (533 MHz, 64-bit)




BarbaricSoul said:


> A 2 gig C2D playing a single threaded game(meaning it only uses one core of your CPU) I would imagine wouldn't perform as a 3 gig P4. Also, that 2600pro is still a decent performer I believe(just going by what I've read on these forum and I maybe wrong) and I could believe being close to the 4350 performance wise. OC the C2D to around 2.5 and it'll beat the P4.


Because of architectural differences between Core 2 (Conroe/Penryn) and Pentium 4/D (NetBurst), the Core 2 is likely to still beat the Pentium 4 at 2/3 the clockspeed.  Conroe/Penryn architecture is better suited for games than NetBurst/Nehalem.


----------



## PotatoChip (Mar 6, 2009)

agp sucks


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 6, 2009)

2.1gb/s vs. 4 gb/s is really not that much for lower end graphics cards, so I would think AGP is fine for that, and lets face it, if you are buying an AGP card for your old system, you are not gonna buy top of the line GFX either, so AGP will be sufficient, but lets say you used AGP for a GTX295 or something, well then there would be MAJOR performance decreases (take a look at the test with the GTX295 in a PCI-E-1x slot, it was bad, like 20% perf drop, how would that be in AGP!!!)


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 6, 2009)

> Because of architectural differences between Core 2 (Conroe/Penryn) and Pentium 4/D (NetBurst), the Core 2 is likely to still beat the Pentium 4 at 2/3 the clockspeed. Conroe/Penryn architecture is better suited for games than NetBurst/Nehalem.



I would agree with you if he was talking about some of the newer C2D, but he's referring to a 2 gig c2d, which is the e4400. With it's 800 mhz FSB and only 2 mb of L2 cache, you really think it's faster than a p4 @ 3gigs? Also, the e4400 is not a conroe or penryn, it's a allendale.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 6, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I think I may be wrong here but check the memory bandwidth of this card and I think that is greater than what AGP can transfer. I'm probably wrong but I will at least learn something from this.



Memory bandwidth in graphics cards is the speed the Vram communicates with the GPU.  Not how fast the card communicates with the rest of the system.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 6, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Memory bandwidth in graphics cards is the speed the Vram communicates with the GPU.  Not how fast the card communicates with the rest of the system.



Is that memory bandwidth  I thought that was the cards total bandwidth  cheers for that.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

you guys should be more honest  agp is better than pci because its much lower latency, and pci express is much better than agp because its much lower latency 

in reality bandwidth wise... well load times will be harsher with slower interfaces, and im not talking about agp vs pci express since agp has alot of bandwidth anyways, but on a pci card you should be able to feel the load times in alot of stuff pretty bad, but agp4x and above should be fine... really as long as your agp4x your good no matter what tho the real issue isnt that, its that a box that can only do agp4x is probably going to have bottlenecks all over the place, i know this i had a barton 2600+ with 1gb ddr400 and an x1950pro which is way too much beast for that box, i would be playing doom3 and be getting like 80-120fps and as soon as something started moving it would have to wait for the cpu to handle physics  or for the system memory to load stuff

the sad thing is, were talking about maybe 100 dollars worth of box to overcome these issues, my box is VERY capable gaming wise, 3.2ghz e2140, asus p5k[normal] these are 40-50 bux used, and ddr2, well ddr2 is the cheapest per mb ive ever seen any memory EVER.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227178
ive got 2 kits of that, 4gb  i spent alot of money on my video card but now its only worth oh, i don't know... what do you guys think,... 75 bux?

if that sounds like a lot of money you should see how much ddr1 costs, for the same price as my whole box you could upgrade to like 2gb of ram  [provided your motherboard will even run that much]


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP is way out-dated.  Sure it's faster than PCI but that's like comparing a Lada to a Skoda, neither are very fast (PCI-E would be a Ferrari ).

The 3850 is the limit of an AGP slot which was an OK card 2 years ago, but it gets eaten, shitted out and then eaten again by today's standards.  I don't understand why anyone would buy an AGP card nowadays, they even cost more than their PCI-E variants.

So basically the answer to your question "How good is AGP", not very good...


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 6, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I would agree with you if he was talking about some of the newer C2D, but he's referring to a 2 gig c2d, which is the e4400. With it's 800 mhz FSB and only 2 mb of L2 cache, you really think it's faster than a p4 @ 3gigs? Also, the e4400 is not a conroe or penryn, it's a allendale.



I don't know about games here (But if someone wants, I can run a comparative benchmark on a P4 + HD3850 AGP as opposed to a 9600GT PCI-E and a Celeron 440), but I did run a SPi comparison between a Netburst and a Conroe-L system:

The first system was:
Intel P4 HT 3Ghz @ 4.2Ghz, 1Mb L2 Cache
2x1Gb OCZ Platinum DDR1 400Mhz CL2-2-2-5
Asus P4P800-E Deluxe Motherboard

The second:
Intel Celeron 440 2.0Ghz, 512Kb L2 Cache
1xOCZ Value DDR2 800Mhz CL5-5-5-15
Biostar G31-M7 TE Motherboard

Both systems clocked in at around 32secs for SPi 1M. When I OC'ed the Celeron 440 to 3.33Ghz (With memory at ~1100Mhz at CL6-6-6-15) it did 22secs or so for SPi 1M. Granted, pure number crunching isn't directly measuring game performance, but in this pure number crunching the Celeron 440 2.0Ghz tied with the 4.2Ghz P4 and beat it soundly while still running some 900Mhz slower after the OC. So yes, that E4400 is a good deal faster than a 3Ghz P4, even at 2Ghz, at least in SPi. Not to mention the fact that the Celeron 440 was cooled at 3.33Ghz with an Arctic Cooling Alpine7 Pro, which is a simple cooler, and the 4.2Ghz P4 requires a Ninja II with a pair of 120mm fans.


----------



## frankie827 (Mar 6, 2009)

i think the most important thing that every wants to know right now is what the specs of u2k's new pc are!


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 6, 2009)

frankie827 said:


> i think the most important thing that every wants to know right now is what the specs of u2k's new pc are!



My guess ? A socket 423 P4 at 1.4Ghz...


----------



## MilkyWay (Mar 6, 2009)

ill sum up the thread - if a card has a high bandwidth it maybe get slowed by an agp slot but none of the available agp cards are high enuf to max it out

the 3850 is a big card but i tihkn it was okay in an agp slot

they stopped making agp cards because the only rigs that have agp also have older cpus that the cpu could become a barrier you know other factors too like ddr1 and ht link fsb

stick a 9800gtx2 on a agp slot you might get maxxed out and the data wont be able to travel as fast causing a traffic jam

its like parallel vs serial, parallel looks good at first because 8 stream of data go through at once but on serial the data is single but much faster so end up being better


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

meh, agp would be fast enough, if there were faster cards for it, thats why you can take 4 geforce 295s and sli them in pci express slots at 4x and its no issue at all, you probably wouldn't loose much performance if the slots were set to 1x either [load times would increase, I'd bet anything that the actual performance outside load times would change more than a small amount]

flame me all you want but AGP by its self is not a bottleneck. its the pink elephant in the room lol, CPU, RAM... mostly cpu really. pci is a bottleneck but pci latency is WAY higher, i mean come on tho its 33mhz :? ofcource its gonna be an issue thats whats so beautiful about pci express, each link is REALLY low bitrate so its latency is really low too 

its bit rate is REALLY low too, like prolly the lowest of anything, but that was the idea of the design

don't believe me about agp not being the bottleneck? there are core2duo capable boards that also have agp

hey my spell check feature is failing how do you spell ofcource?


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> dont get me wrong, its not like i think AGP is useless, or incredibly slow. AGP has hit its limits with the 3850, and i just get annoyed at people who spout things with no proof of backup, when they contradict common thinking. If you want to change peoples minds, you need more than a theory.
> 
> all video cards in DX9.0c (and under) require the video cards ram to be synced with the system ram (it duplicates), therefore a slot needs to be as fast as the ram on the video card, to 'max out' its performance (odds are the GPU or something would hinder it before here, but you get the point), slap a GDDR5 card into an AGP slot and watch it choke, just like modern cards (HD2400, Nv 8400) do in PCI



I read nowhere in the forum rules that one must back up what he says with any solid proof.  If you don't believe him, then don't.  If someone is truly naive enough to believe this, then so be it.  Kind of getting tired of people saying "don't talk if you cant back it up".  I'll talk, and say what I like, so long as it is in the forum rules.  Saying this pretty much just incites fights by angering people, which *is* against the forum rules.
And no, I don't have any evidence to back this up.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> meh, agp would be fast enough, if there were faster cards for it, thats why you can take 4 geforce 295s and sli them in pci express slots at 4x and its no issue at all, you probably wouldn't loose much performance if the slots were set to 1x either [load times would increase, I'd bet anything that the actual performance outside load times would change more than a small amount]
> 
> flame me all you want but AGP by its self is not a bottleneck. its the pink elephant in the room lol, CPU, RAM... mostly cpu really. pci is a bottleneck but pci latency is WAY higher, i mean come on tho its 33mhz :? ofcource its gonna be an issue thats whats so beautiful about pci express, each link is REALLY low bitrate so its latency is really low too
> 
> ...



If I ran a GTX on AGP I would kick myself in the nuts

and the boards your talking about are the Hybrid Boards, and they are just terrible, they overclock like crap and are not compatible with alot of modern cards, I remember when I had my old 4coredual it made me so mad I went out and bought a new board and snapped that one in half to get it off this earth.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

hehe, don't get me wrong either, agp is dead, but... not because of AGP all by its self, more like because the very best your gonna get out of AGP is one of those junky boards with what was it an ALI chipset? i forget who made it but the ones that are 775 with ddr2 but also ddr1, and agp+pci express, asrock made one, i had it but i hated it so much, upgrading to the p5k without changing anything else upped my performance by like 30% lol seriously.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

AGP-8x 2.1GB/sec
PCI express = 250mb/sec per lane

EDIT: agp 64bit is 4gb/sec ish but i dont think thats very relevant just interesting... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths


----------



## niko084 (Mar 6, 2009)

Ok, I think what he is saying is the same thing I said....

If you are not bottle necking because of the bandwidth requirement of the AGP slot and all other system aspects are equal that AGP is faster than PCI-E, and he is correct if that is what he is trying to say.

But it's coming out more like AGP is better than PCI-E PERIOD with all current hardware... And that is simply not true, even if you do not include SLI/Crossfire.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

no! i didn't say that in fact i said the opposite didn't you see me going on about how low latency it is, the way its designed is with super tiny packets little tiny itsy bitsy ones, smaller than any device, which means extremely low latency so things get back and forth way faster... it uses a lot of lanes, instead of having 32bit wide it can have 32 lanes which is like the same thing but way better like the difference between hyperthreaded dual core 2ghz and true quad core 3.2ghz


EDIT: i have a theory on why it is they wanted to lower the latency like that... well first off duh, because videocards are doing more and more and they will benefit the normal way you would think but, i think also they might be getting ready to move to a shared memory interface, something not unlike how the xbox360 works


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

but we can all agree that PCI-E is superior to AGP right, because it is

AGP is now the PCI of AGP's days

AGP is dead and every now and then a zombie pops up from its grave, the last zombie was the HD3850 but that zombie was pimped out.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

yeah we can all agree on that, besides, if for no other reason than, cost effectiveness, back about 2 years ago you could save a little money having an AGP box but now, now if you wanted to build an AGP box from new'ish' stuff you would spend twice as much on an agp box than you would on a pci express box so there is no use for spending more than 25 dollars on upgrading an agp box [trust me there are ppl here that will sell you pieces for like nothing if you are AGP, i personally have a 5700LE with 5700 clocks and no HSF that i will trade for almost anything.] [actually it does have a HSF but the fan is glued on with hot glue cuz the default fan died and they are those little tiny ones that you cant possibly replace, sigh i REALLY hate stoopid fans that dont have ball bearings.]


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> AGP is dead and every now and then a zombie pops up from its grave, the last zombie was the HD3850 *but that zombie was pimped out*.





Sigged!


----------



## niko084 (Mar 6, 2009)

Will PCI-E use all those lanes independently though to help with efficiency, like you said a HT or dual core chip..


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

they are extremely independent, and even modular, they can even be shut off to conserve power and things like that... plus like i said before they can be used to share memory efficiently... which has always been a bad thing...
but it would be a good thing if it was set up like xbox360... which i don't know if you guys know [most of you almost assuredly do know...] has this crazy setup that shares the memory between the cpu and videocard in a much better way so its better for both  maybe i am jumping the gun thinking something like that... but then again look at how cost effective and performance affective that would be [cpu with gpu style memory bandwidth.. look at folding on a 2900xt]

EDIT: sorry, i get excited about new stuff and memory bandwidth.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 6, 2009)

If they could make an xbox with a core i7 and a GTX285 as the gpu it would play crysis at 100fps and out fold god.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 6, 2009)

Mussels said:


> modern low end doesnt mean its faster than old mid range.
> 
> its like comparing an 8200 vs a 7900GT, it just aint gunna match it any way, ever.



A prime example of this is the x800. It used to spank the x1600. Sometimes the 1900 in early driver builds. But some people don't like facts on this forum I'v been noticing lately.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 6, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> no! i didn't say that in fact i said the opposite



I was referring to kiriakost's earlier post.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 6, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> A prime example of this is the x800. It used to spank the x1600. Sometimes the 1900 in early driver builds. But some people don't like facts on this forum I'v been noticing lately.



The x800 was high end when it came out was it not  I was too young at the time.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

wow, i was young when super mario bros 2 for NES game out [like about 10 or 12 or so?]


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

Lots and interesting views , from the lovers and the haters .. 

But , what we do here are one analysis ,  did we or not ?  get any benefit from the PCI-e the last  five years ?? 

We talk about  PCI-e as to was born today ....  

If we conclude that the today ultra fast cards will benefit from the  PCI-e ,  why in earth the AGP got trashed ( marketing view ) ,  before five years back ? 

Are we smart ... or silly ones .... when we follow marketing directions , with out to think by our selfs , if the " *new one* " are truly  useful ?  

We are not only tech freaks , we are also consumers ....  can some one thinks how much money got lost from the  consumers , because of this technological hype  ..

Many young ones , believed that their computer is old or slow , 
just because of the PCI-e marketing hype ..  

*Lets come back in our time ....  *
My motherboard , has the INTEL chip set  I875 .... if some one brush-up old INTELs white papers , he will find that this chip was made to support dual CPU setups . 

Can you just imagine ... dual P4 3.2Ghz + AGP   .. and all this just 5 years back . 

What is my wish with all this facts , its more as a reason to make you think and be skeptic,
than  a voting  of  " what i like best " . 

The AGP it will not come back to lead , but by killing it prematurely , the consumers lost money .... and  our " tech Gods "  are  responsible for our loss of money .

*And my last word* ....  *If i wish to kill PCI-e*  .... *i will stop making VGAs for it* ..... this trick worked well about killing AGP  . 



.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 6, 2009)

niko084 said:


> You are actually correct in that also, the AGP design is more efficient I guess you could say.
> If they were to cross the technologies it would be great.
> But- PCI-E v2 doesn't fix that issue, it just adds more bandwidth.
> 
> ...



I guess that explains why a 3650 PCIE is cheaper than a 3650 thats AGP


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 6, 2009)

There is so much BS and rubbish in this thread, it is embarassing.

Read here: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=175321

AGP is faster than PCIe x8 for graphics. DONT confuse bandwidth (two way) with transfer of graphics data to a GPU.

PCIe is a much better and much more flexible interface. It is the hands down winner.

BUT, if you ARE comparing AGP to PCIe graphics cards, every model that EXISTS on AGP is as fast, or faster, than the PCIe version. This was true for x800... all the way to HD 3850.  Unfortunately there is no AGP 4xxx series. I'm sure with this series PCIe would have been faster.

PCIv2 is double the bandwidth of PCIv1. So therefore PCIv2 x8 is faster than AGP.

CHECK my rig. AGP Q6600. HD 3850. Benchmarks on other threads. Go search.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

there are 2 reasons agp cards are more expensive, #1 cuz companys are makeing up for fewer sales, and #2 they have a chip on them to convert them from pci express to agp [i had one, it needed cooling and i couldnt effectively cool it due to its design and size, so i had to drop down to agp4x as a solution, was on an x1950pro]


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> there are 2 reasons agp cards are more expensive
> 
> *#1 *cuz companys are makeing up for fewer sales, and
> 
> *#2* they have a chip on them to convert them from pci express to agp [i had one, it needed cooling and i couldnt effectively cool it due to its design and size, so i had to drop down to agp4x as a solution, was on an x1950pro]



1) Sales .... they kill their sales ... 

2) Even your motherboard  has the *" North bridge " *,
is that ever become an issue all this years ??  

Why to become an issue the  *" AGP bridge " *  ?? 

Its all bridges to me  ... 

Food for thoughts


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 6, 2009)

If AGP is so much better then why did they jump to PCI-e? Why is PCI-e the industry standard?


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 6, 2009)

niko084 said:


> The Freq is not everything...
> 
> PCI-E 16x v3 - 16GB/s
> PCI-E 16x v2 - 8GB/s
> ...



I just pointed out a spec. Besides i even said it's not twice as fast.


----------



## erocker (Mar 6, 2009)

Stay on topic.  First, last and only warning.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

where is this system of yours u2k, at least tell us the specs

agp didn't die because of bandwidth I think it died because pci-e was more versatile(SLI/Crossfire, more clean power to the card) and easily upgradable at the time


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 6, 2009)

re: OP, if the question is, how good is agp, the answer is really great, better than you need in most situations

i think if you were sharing with system memory you'd want pci express.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

Error 404 said:


> Also, kiriakost; The textures are not "as big as an elephant", they are comparatively small; there are just THOUSANDS of them, and they're not being loaded off of your hard drive, they're being transferred from your RAM to the PCI-E slot, so no hard drive bottlenecks from that except for when you are loading a level or something.




Lets see the journey of one game until the screen ....   

*1) *The game is on CD or HD ,  with the 3D textures compressed . 

*2)* When we start a game so to play , we select screen resolution ....  What the game does is to decompress 3D textures , at one degree of compression , low resolutions demands more compressed  (small textures in size )  , and as we go up the textures becomes  less compressed ( and more good looking ) 

*3) *   The less decompressed  textures demands  large free highways so to run freely , and fast ,  from the HD  to  CPU - ram - GPU .  
There is three subsystems here , its one must do its part , and the weak link are the slowest one . 

The DDR  raw bandwidth speed  is about  5 - 6 GB  ( sandra )  On Read !! 
The DDR  raw bandwidth speed  is about   4  GB  ( sandra )  On Write  !! 

The AGP raw  ( theoretical ) bandwidth is about 4GB  

The HDD  true *Read speed* is about  120MB  on raid ... 
The HDD  true *Write  speed* is about  40 - 50  on raid ... 

If some one tell me , how faster are DDR2  from DDR , we could calculate ,  the true benefit of  ram  and  PCI-e  against     ...  AGP + DDR . 

In simple words , if we had DDR2 + AGP ,   how bad it will was ,  in comparison DDR2 and PCI-e . 

Any way , its a complicate story for the very young ones around , so there is no hard feelings , if some one can not keep up , with this subject .


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 6, 2009)

I was keeping up with this subject until I saw that post, however i don't understand where HDDs or RAID configurations come into this. I also advise you try and read your posts since understanding the grammar in your post gave me a headache Kiriakost.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 6, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> I also advise you try and read your posts since understanding the grammar in your post gave me a headache Kiriakost.



I can type Greek if you like , it would make my headache less too .


----------



## KainXS (Mar 6, 2009)

im not tryin to start anything here but anyone else get the feeling this thread is heading towards flame ville

need to get back on track

"waits for u2k's pics"


----------



## RevengE (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm waiting for pics as well.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 7, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> I read nowhere in the forum rules that one must back up what he says with any solid proof.  If you don't believe him, then don't.  If someone is truly naive enough to believe this, then so be it.  Kind of getting tired of people saying "don't talk if you cant back it up".  I'll talk, and say what I like, so long as it is in the forum rules.  Saying this pretty much just incites fights by angering people, which *is* against the forum rules.
> And no, I don't have any evidence to back this up.



just because i'm a moderator, doesnt mean everything i say is an order. He's making some claims that are backed up by 'proof' he hasnt provided, ANYONE is welcome to ask for proof in that situation.

Someone also commented about how PCI-E is underused, because you can run four GTX 295's on 4x slots and it still works ok.
Thats because of PCI-E 2.0, which doubles the bandwidth again and is the entire reason for 2.0's existence. a 4x slot on 2.0 is equal to an 8x slot on 1.0, thus why it hardly slows down.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 7, 2009)

Thanks for the information on the agp guys. But i don't have my secondary computer anymore. 
I recently bought a dell optiplex gx280, Intel Pentium 4 with 2 pci slots and 1 green agp x4 slot, 3.0ghz with 2GB.  However, i had to take it back , because of a powersupply issue, and well the guy likes to get over on people, etc etc, i almost had him arrested, etc back to my lovely p3 lol. 

Oh well, i am just going to buy my new rig from best buy like i said from the start and stop dealing with these sh*** ass pawn shops and Thrift stores. 

peace


----------



## LittleLizard (Mar 7, 2009)

imo, the next slot that will replace pcie should be named UAGP or Ultra Acelerated Graphics Prto xD


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 7, 2009)

LittleLizard said:


> imo, the next slot that will replace pcie should be named UAGP or Ultra Acelerated Graphics Prto xD



I do not get happiness, by buying the next famous graphics port , i prefer my motorcycle.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 7, 2009)

Isn't PCIE 3.0 the newest?
or i am missing something here?


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 7, 2009)

PCI-E 2.0 x16's the fastest graphics interface right now, 3.0's probably still in development/ not coming at all. This thread has officially been derailed.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 7, 2009)

i knew this would happen


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2009)

KainXS said:


> i knew this would happen





Well, that's an informative post!   I'll just rename the thread so all of your "this thread is going off topic" off topic posts will be defunct.  Mwahahahaha!!


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 7, 2009)

I made that comment as part of an informative post, I'm trying to stop myself from derailing threads at the moment.


----------



## erocker (Mar 7, 2009)

I'll say this again.  If you feel that a thread is being crapped on, thrown off topic, contains something unnapropriate, use the *REPORT BUTTON*.  Why?  Because filling the thread with posts saying "This is off topic" is essentially off topic and does nothing but fill the thread with more useless banter.  However using the *REPORT BUTTON* allows for us moderators to be alerted to the thread in question without straying the thread off topic even more.  Thank you.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 7, 2009)

Ketxxx said:


> I done a whitepaper for AGP and PCI-E, hers a copy and paste job from both.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case the only advantage of PCI-E over AGP is that of data throughput (3200MBps vs. 2100MBps) as AGP is a point to point link anyway. If a graphics card is being used for less conventional uses (*maybe video capture?*) the equal downstream throughput should provide a large advantage over AGP. For PCI devices, especially those requiring frequent bus accesses, the gains in latency will provide a great advantage.



My congratulations for this honest technical info . 

The sea of knowledge are enormous , but very few has the potentials to explore it.


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2009)

man this thread takes me back. I remember there was this guy who still played Quake (as did I, of course) and we had pretty similar machines, except he had a 7800gs and I had a 5200 ultra. When I got my 6800xt I was so happy because I was finally able to somewhat compare to his system's performance, however, shortly after he got the (brand new at that time) 8800gts


----------



## hat (Mar 7, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Isn't PCIE 3.0 the newest?
> or i am missing something here?



pci-e 2.0 is the fastest available on the market. 3.0 is still in R&D


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 12, 2009)

I just want to make sure right quick, if i had a computer which this slot:







I can use a 4670 card in it right?

Also my next question, it seems this rig only allows low profile cards, the desktop looks like a big book btw.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 12, 2009)

That's a 1x slot so no. You need a full length 16x slot.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 12, 2009)

I thought pciex16 / 2.0 was backwards compatible?


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 12, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I thought pciex16 / 2.0 was backwards compatible?



Yes, but the picture of the slot you took is PCI-E x1, not x16


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 12, 2009)

This is from another forum:

*I want to know that whether XFX 9600GT Graphics Card(PV-T96G-YMFF) which is PCI-E 2.0 card, will fit in my mainborad(Intel Original DG35EC Motherboard) whose PCI-E version is 1.1. Is this PCI-E 2.0 card is backward compatible with PCI-E 1.1 slot of my mainboard ? If yes, what settings I have to do during installation for this backward compatibility?

Should I connect PCI-E six pin power supply to the card when using it in PCI-E 1.1 Slot? Is this power connection to the card used only when fitting the card in PCI-E 2.0 Slot and not when fitting in PCI-E 1.1 slot?*

Someone said this:

*The power connector is a requirement, and you should have no issues with the compatibility.*

On another note i found this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812200157


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 12, 2009)

The black port is the PCI-E x16 or PCI-E 1.1 slot





EDIT: And there is no problem hooking a 2.0 card into a 1.1 slot. But if there is a power connection on the card it MUST be used


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 12, 2009)

So only 2.0 , not x16? 
And about power connectors, no need, the 4670 doesn't require any.( i also do not buy cards that required them )


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 12, 2009)

u2konline said:


> So only 2.0 , not x16?
> And about power connectors, no need, the 4670 doesn't require any.



No, It's PCI-E x16 1.1, and the next step up is PCI-E x16 2.0. Kinda like USB 1.1 and USB 2.0, same port, different speeds.
And correct, the 4670 does not have a power connector on it


----------



## hat (Mar 12, 2009)

The problem with running a 4670 in that slot is that it has no external power connector and that slot will not provide enough power to the card. You need a full-sized slot to give the proper amount of power. Also, the pci-e 2.0 spec is 150w and pci-e 1.1 spec is 75w, so if you run a pci-e 2.0 card without a power connector in a pci-e 1.1 slot you may experiance power problems.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 12, 2009)

ooooooh, so pcie x16 2.0 are the ones that would work. 

Peace and thanks for the info again 



hat said:


> The problem with running a 4670 in that slot is that it has no external power connector and that slot will not provide enough power to the card. You need a full-sized slot to give the proper amount of power. Also, the pci-e 2.0 spec is 150w and pci-e 1.1 spec is 75w, so if you run a pci-e 2.0 card without a power connector in a pci-e 1.1 slot you may experiance power problems.



People said i will have problems with my 8400gs running on 90watts. This card requires 350 watts, i am just fine lol


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 13, 2009)

4670 does not need 350w.. Maybe a whole PC but not the card itself. Just so you know, all 16x length cards will work in 1.1 and 2.0 slots. Putting a 2.0 card in a 1.1 slot is perfectly fine!


----------



## KBD (Mar 13, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Thanks for the information on the agp guys. But i don't have my secondary computer anymore.
> I recently bought a dell optiplex gx280, Intel Pentium 4 with 2 pci slots and 1 green agp x4 slot, 3.0ghz with 2GB.  However, i had to take it back , because of a powersupply issue, and well the guy likes to get over on people, etc etc, i almost had him arrested, etc back to my lovely p3 lol.
> 
> Oh well, i am just going to buy my new rig from best buy like i said from the start and stop dealing with these sh*** ass pawn shops and Thrift stores.
> ...




thats what you get when you buy from pawnshops. If you want to save money you can can pick up a brand new P4 Dell (or other OEM) system on ebay for around $200 or so and at least it will come with some warranty/support.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 13, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> 4670 does not need 350w


Yes i understand that, I was just giving an example, how my 8400gs PCI requires i meant to say 300. But i am using 90watts and the card is running at its full power, gaming, no issues. I understand PCIE cards and PCI cards are completely different. I plan to run either a 300 or 350watts PSU with a 4670, whenever i buy the 4670. From what its mention over at gpureview, it only draws 59w. Thats slightly higher then this 8400gs , which i was told only draws 40.



ShadowFold said:


> Just so you know, all 16x length cards will work in 1.1 and 2.0 slots. Putting a 2.0 card in a 1.1 slot is perfectly fine!


So i could buy a x16 or 2.0 card, and it should work just fine, thanks for the information. 




KBD said:


> thats what you get when you buy from pawnshops. If you want to save money you can can pick up a brand new P4 Dell (or other OEM) system on ebay for around $200 or so and at least it will come with some warranty/support.







http://www3.dealtime.com/xPF-Dell-D...ron-Desktop-Computer-for-Business-210LTCELMIN
*I did not buy this rig from that site or a pawn shop, i bought this rig at a computer shop across town today*

I already bought it for 40 bucks, its on hold for me, so i will pick it up monday.  It has the following features:

It has actually 2.8ghz(not 2.66)
2GB already install
My lovely Intel Chip  ( I don't use onboard video, its just nice to have one inside )
Its a Pentium 4, with Intel Celeron D
It has one PCIE slot, and 3 PCI slots. 
It comes with 250watts PSU

I am planning to add a few things to it or save for it(for a spare) Like a spare PSU, a external HD, and a 8600gt. Oh and i am installing XP pro edition. This rig will hold me over for about 10 years, i hope anyway. Don't know if dell is long lasting like Gateway. 

Cheers


----------



## hat (Mar 13, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Its a Pentium 4, with Intel Celeron D



lol


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 13, 2009)

I seen video of people playing games just fine with a Celeron D, i have 2.8ghz, that should be just fine. Even tho i heard 533mhz is slightly slower then 800mhz, but still good enough. I am pumped right now, you guys know the first game i plan to install , is Crysis Demo. The only slighly bad part , i have to use my Visiontek 2400HD PCI card until i buy my 8600GT in a few weeks. Using a 2400HD in a more powerful rig is always a small boost , so i will run crysis at 1280x1024 medium to high and see how it goes.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 13, 2009)

Oh i see, i keep getting confused with that damn p4 sticker on some of the models(there was tons of them laying around) I meant to say a Dell celeron D 2.8ghz, not a celeron d with p4 lol. I was trying to figure out what was so damn funny. hehehe. human error lol


----------



## KainXS (Mar 13, 2009)

If you were buying a new pc, I would say you should've got an AMD Athlon system

The celeron d's aren't bad, well the later ones weren't, especially the cedar mill ones which most times destroy their pentium counterparts because of the massive overclocks they reach

but that system has a prescott

and yes, they're are celeron d systems with pentium 4 logo's on them, and its only because, the celeron d's themselves are nothing but low binned pentium 4's and the early ones had threads disabled but later models didn't, they only had the cache's cut


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 13, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I seen video of people playing games just fine with a Celeron D, i have 2.8ghz, that should be just fine. Even tho i heard 533mhz is slightly slower then 800mhz, but still good enough. I am pumped right now, you guys know the first game i plan to install , is Crysis Demo. The only slighly bad part , i have to use my Visiontek 2400HD PCI card until i buy my 8600GT in a few weeks. Using a 2400HD in a more powerful rig is always a small boost , so i will run crysis at 1280x1024 medium to high and see how it goes.



It won't run on med-high, EVER. Just forget it. At 1440X900 (Which is about 2% less pixels on screen than 1280X1024, actually) my 3Ghz P4 (Overclocked to 4.2Ghz) with the HD3850 512Mb GDDR3 AGP (Overclocked as well) can barely run the game on high settings under DX9. You can forget about running the game even on medium at the said resolution with the PCI HD2400Pro. I'll be surprised if you'll get a playable framerate (That is, over 24fps on average, at the very least) at even 1024x768 on all settings low.


----------



## EnglishLion (Mar 13, 2009)

I agree - no chance with running Crysis on a 2400pro on medium-high no matter what the interface.  I'd be surprised if an 8600GT will do it either.

On the topic of PCI cards, I bought one on ebay the other day for an upgrade to a Very Bottom of the range Dell for my sister which had no AGP or PCIe slot.  Dimension 3000, just 3 x PCI slots.  I got an old FX5500, with the aim to run 'KOTOR sith lords'.  So I compared it to my own PCI FX5200, my onboard X1250 and my onboard 6150.  Link in my sig if you want to read about it...


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 13, 2009)

PCI-E: Meant really only for Video cards and is the current standard.

PCI: Used for Expansion cards and for low end video sometimes.

AGP: A fairly outdated video card expansion slot. Some people still use it tho.


----------



## KBD (Mar 13, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> PCI-E: Meant really only for Video cards and is the current standard.



Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.


----------



## EnglishLion (Mar 13, 2009)

KBD said:


> Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.



Very true and well pointed out.  Commonly the 16x slot is used for graphics and the 1x (much shorter) slot is used for other cards - network cards etc.  However some high end RAID controller cards require greater than 1x and so are supplied as 4x cards.  These will not fit in a 1x slot but are usually compatible with a 16x slot.  All in all the PCIe slot is very versatile.


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 13, 2009)

EnglishLion said:


> I agree - no chance with running Crysis on a 2400pro on medium-high no matter what the interface.  I'd be surprised if an 8600GT will do it either.
> 
> On the topic of PCI cards, I bought one on ebay the other day for an upgrade to a Very Bottom of the range Dell for my sister which had no AGP or PCIe slot.  Dimension 3000, just 3 x PCI slots.  I got an old FX5500, with the aim to run 'KOTOR sith lords'.  So I compared it to my own PCI FX5200, my onboard X1250 and my onboard 6150.  Link in my sig if you want to read about it...



Here's a link to my own findings into PCI video cards and the like. There's a benchmarks of a Via C7-D running a PCI8500GT there, as well as the same PCI8500GT benchmarked on my main rig (The 3.9Ghz E5200 in my sig). Pretty much no modern game is playable on a PCI card, period.


----------



## KBD (Mar 13, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> Pretty much no modern game is playable on a PCI card, period.




i remember u2k posting some screenies of COD4 running on his P3 and a PCI card @1280x1024. I think he had it on low settings and was getting low fps but i believe it was playble which i found very surprising.


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 13, 2009)

KBD said:


> i remember u2k posting some screenies of COD4 running on his P3 and a PCI card @1280x1024. I think he had it on low settings and was getting low fps but i believe it was playble which i found very surprising.



"2008-12-19 21:40:45 - iw3sp
Frames: 7757 - Time: 344496ms - Avg: 22.516 - Min: 6 - Max: 98"

That's from my benchmark run of CoD4 on the lowest settings at 1024x768 (Entire benchmarks in the link in my previous post, if you are interested), running on an E5200 at 3.9Ghz and with a PCI8500GT I pulled out from my Via C7-D system. This is on the lowest settings, and it is not playable.

His P3 would never get close to the same result (Weaker video card, 12 times less RAM and a CPU something like....eh...20 times less processing power than the E5200 I tested with ?). I know he's claiming Crysis to be playable as well on medium-high on that P3, but they are B.S and have never happened. The only time he posted a screenshot of a crysis timedemo run result he averaged at 7 fps or so and his claimed results are an embellishment of what he is getting on that P3, with any playable framerates being achieved only when he is staring at the wall or at the ground.


----------



## KBD (Mar 13, 2009)

it wasnt Crysis that he posted it was COD4, i actually found that thread, see post 25:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=86149

I'm not defending his use of old hardware just saying saying those results are quite decent for that syustem.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 13, 2009)

KBD said:


> Thats not entirely correct. PCI-e is meant for many things and is the replacement for PCI (since AGP was only for GPUs) because the PCI bus has become a bottleneck for devices attached to it. So PCI-e is used for a variety of cards: controller cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, network cards, you name it. Though the primary use for the PCI-e x16 slot is the video card.



Its meant for many things, but video cards has been one of is main purposes for sometime now.(as you even stated), As i used to word meant loosely, not to refer to it as a ''video card only bus that nothing else can connect to''.


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 13, 2009)

KBD said:


> it wasnt Crysis that he posted it was COD4, i actually found that thread, see post 25:
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=86149
> 
> I'm not defending his use of old hardware just saying saying those results are quite decent for that syustem.



The quote I put states "iw3sp" as the application, that's CoD4. His results are borked and the game is a slideshow on his system. Nothing is playable on that P3 of his (Unless by playable he means a somewhat speedy slideshow, if we go by the very least of 24 fps avg as being barely playable, nothing is playable on his "rig"), no matter how well he tries to tell us otherwise. Proof is in my blog, unless somehow that magical P3 can outperform a modern system equipped with a PCI 8500GT for testing.

The fact that you originally posted that you believe that it was playable on his system is what is irking me here, it means that his nonsense on several forums is actually taking hold and someone might take his reports as true and follow a PCI route with the expectations of actually gaming.

I am sorry if the post is harsh (and you, KBD, are surely not the target of any ire, the beef is with u2k here), I just don't like when people claim something they are obviously making up, especially when it might mislead people.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 13, 2009)

Calm down who cares if he is fooling us or not.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 13, 2009)

that P3 would have to be over 2 GHz to get anywhere, my CPU has to be at 2.2GHz from 1.8 to Drive my Videocard otherwise it lags, I noticed my CPU running at 2296.8 that the games are smoother, so its proving my CPU was the Bottleneck.


----------



## KBD (Mar 14, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> The quote I put states "iw3sp" as the application, that's CoD4. His results are borked and the game is a slideshow on his system. Nothing is playable on that P3 of his (Unless by playable he means a somewhat speedy slideshow, if we go by the very least of 24 fps avg as being barely playable, nothing is playable on his "rig"), no matter how well he tries to tell us otherwise. Proof is in my blog, unless somehow that magical P3 can outperform a modern system equipped with a PCI 8500GT for testing.
> 
> The fact that you originally posted that you believe that it was playable on his system is what is irking me here, it means that his nonsense on several forums is actually taking hold and someone might take his reports as true and follow a PCI route with the expectations of actually gaming.
> 
> I am sorry if the post is harsh (and you, KBD, are surely not the target of any ire, the beef is with u2k here), I just don't like when people claim something they are obviously making up, especially when it might mislead people.




i dont think he's fooling anyone. no one here is buying into the concept of PCI-based GPUs for gaming as folks here know better. Amazing thing is that the game actually runs on that rig (i didnt think it would, lol). and i dont even think he has the intention of misleading people: to him it looks like the game is playble because he doesnt know any better and has nothing else to compare it to, remember, he had the same rig for 8 years. I wouldnt even know how that kind of low FPS would look like in that game so playble for him and playble for me are too different things. If he is happy with it then god bless him.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 14, 2009)

KBD said:


> i dont think he's fooling anyone. no one here is buying into the concept of PCI-based GPUs for gaming as folks here know better. Amazing thing is that the game actually runs on that rig (i didnt think it would, lol). and i dont even think he has the intention of misleading people: to him it looks like the game is playble because he doesnt know any better and has nothing else to compare it to, remember, he had the same rig for 8 years. I wouldnt even know how that kind of low FPS would look like in that game so playble for him and playble for me are too different things. If he is happy with it then god bless him.



I'm gonna agree with Yukikaze,

but does it matter, No, its actually kind of funny



u2konline said:


> So after testing Crysis Warhead on my P3, This is what i found out:
> 
> 1280X1024 resolution, Gamer, to Mainstream settings, Gamma Correction in Anti-Aliasing, transparency anti aliasing multisampling, full screen anti aliasing AAX4( note, sound and water and Shadows on low) I put this game on AAX4 and i lose no performance whatsoever, i average around 9-13fps at these settings, not bad for my rig. NO OC, all stock gpu settings.
> 
> ...



kinda like that

with a P3 and a 8400GS that is what I would call impossible

its off topic but funny none the less


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 14, 2009)

I am going to post this image one last time lol, because i am not fooling anyone.





Thats all i have.


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 14, 2009)

You're using photoshop there, PCI-E appeared in 2004 and PIIIs stopped being made in 2003, however you said that you'd had your machine for 8 years, this combined with your obviously basic knowledge of computer hardware (like buying a system the size of a "large book") suggests that you've not changed your mobo in those 8 years.
Your mobo in your system specs isn't a mobo, it's just the graphics component of the chipset which is the intel 810, this was magically created in 1999 so there's no way you could be running a PCI-E card on your mobo unless you put the slot there yourself and fitted a new chipset (if you did I congratulate you but you'd need a mobo factory to do it).
Also the boards with an 810 chipset rarely have an AGP slot let alone a PCI-E one.


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 14, 2009)

u2konline, I don't have a problem with you saying what rig specs you have, I just have a problem with you claiming performance you never get. Back at TechSpot people were already inquiring, based on your results, what a PCI video card would do for them. That's misleading. 

KBD, I am not stating he is doing it out of malice, but the end result is the same. I came across plenty of people on the internet (Some locally here) who have heard about "the guy with a P3 running games", when he isn't really running games, but rather slideshows.

crazy pyro, a modern PCI video card reads as if it is PCI-E x1 in GPU-Z because of the bridge chip. It does the same on my Via box with a PCI 8500GT.

In the end, I don't mind him using the same rig for a millenia if it suits him. I have a Celeron Tualatin in my parents' house basement for some internet surfing or checking e-mail, but I don't go claiming it can run Crysis (It can't, and it actually has an AGP slot). I just mind him going around telling people he is getting "12-30 average fps" (eh.....what ?) or when he's getting 13 average fps and says it is "playable", despite people pointing out to him that the generally acceptable barely playable mark would be avg fps of above 24, at the very least.

Anyways, I am done here, I don't want this to degenerate into a P3 bashing thread, as that would be pointless (Been done before, with no results).


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 14, 2009)

Ah right, didn't know that Yukikaze, didn't say PIII mobos with AGP slots didn't exist, just said that ones with that chipset running an AGP slot were. 13 average is playable, I played through Half-Life 2 on an average of 12 a couple of years ago but I seriously wouldn't advise trying to run games at the framerate, an RTS should be fine but otherwise no way would I consider any other type of game.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 14, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> You're using photoshop there, PCI-E appeared in 2004 and PIIIs stopped being made in 2003, however you said that you'd had your machine for 8 years, this combined with your obviously basic knowledge of computer hardware (like buying a system the size of a "large book") suggests that you've not changed your mobo in those 8 years.
> Your mobo in your system specs isn't a mobo, it's just the graphics component of the chipset which is the intel 810, this was magically created in 1999 so there's no way you could be running a PCI-E card on your mobo unless you put the slot there yourself and fitted a new chipset (if you did I congratulate you but you'd need a mobo factory to do it).
> Also the boards with an 810 chipset rarely have an AGP slot let alone a PCI-E one.



I don't use photoshop. Also, i never said i had my computer for 8 years. I said i had this same computer since 2000. The date on the side of the computer reads 5/14/2000. 
And why are you talking about AGP? I don't have AGP slots. All i have is 4 PCI slots. 

*Yukikaze:*

System requirements are always inaccurate for gaming and hardware. I am not misleading anyone. You can believe what you like tho, but i am not fooling anyone. You guys didn't believe me when i said i was running this rig with those games at 90watts, the same PSU from 2000. But yet i already showed you proof. So again, system requirements are always inaccurate.


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 14, 2009)

Yes, they are always inaccurate, but they're not going to remove a section of their target market saying an entire OS can't run it if it can, your processor's less than a quarter of what's needed to run it and an 8400 won't perform better than a 6800GT, probably a fair bit lower. I mentioned AGP as that was what came before PCI-E and if the chipset only supports them in rare cases then there's no way it'll run PCI-E. 
Saying you had the same computer since 2000 is saying you had it somewhere between 8 and 9 years.
I suggest you go and play your slideshow while watching the crappy peice of TV that is Smallville.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Mar 14, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> Saying you had the same computer since 2000 is saying you had it somewhere between 8 and 9 years.
> I suggest you go and play your slideshow while watching the crappy peice of TV that is Smallville.



First, not necessarily, he could have gotten it a few years ago, but it's been running since 2000. Second, that last sentence truly is not necessary.
This was supposed to help him figure out what bus would be better for him with upgrading. Now it has turned into a bashing session.

u2konline: Do you have your new Dell in your possession? Cuz i think you said you had to a wait a few days to get it or something?


----------



## DaveK (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm not even here this long and I find these threads annoying. By the way, playable generally means 30FPS. Hell, I can't even stand watching videos from camera phones at 15FPS. 30FPS or GTFO.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 15, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> u2konline: Do you have your new Dell in your possession? Cuz i think you said you had to a wait a few days to get it or something?


Nope, picking it up Monday morning and will have it running fully Monday night. 

I am planning to use my Visiontek 2400HD and BFG 8400gs(not at the same time of course, just switching back & forth) with it.  I should get a very good performance boost with the 2400HD or 8400GS, using a rig with 2GB of DDR2 memory and 2.8ghz. With my Pentium III, i am going back to using my 3dfuzion FX5500 and BFG 6200 and keep my older cards for backup. So one rig for newer games and one rig for older games, should work out great! 
Actually i am about go to back to using my FX5500 in a few hours. 

Anyways, The first 6 games which i plan to install to play at better settings and with better performance are 

Jericho 
Crysis Demo
Lost Planet Demo( Finally , i have been waiting to play this game for ages now )
COD4 Demo
Crysis Warhead 
Alarm Cobra Crash Time. 

Cheers.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 15, 2009)

8400gs just absolutely smokes the crap out of the 2400 both pro and XT, you really should just look up stuff befor buying randomly....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar..._processing_units#GeForce_8_.288xxx.29_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...s#Radeon_R600_.28HD_2xxx.2C_HD_3xxx.29_series

also the 8400gs is on a whole different level power efficiency wise. altho its expensive, for about the same price somebody could get something around the level of whats in my box... probably around 75-90 dollars or so, i havnt been seeing an 8400gs for all that far off from that. or if your really hard up for cash a 7900gs or x1950pro would be good, 8400gs isnt bad tho since you already have it...

so long as your not playing anything with requirements far above doom3 you will be fine. plus it all depends on the user too, some people feel bad below 60fps, some people are fine with 30fps and ugh, some people are actually comfortable with being in the 15fps range. plus resolutions, im fine with 1360x768, alot of ppl find that to be painfully low, and alot of people are ok with 640x480

i see the list of things you intend on testing, i wouldnt really feel too bad if it doesnt perform well, its not going to, atleast not in the crysis demo, altho you might have some luck with like cod4 crysis is coded poorly and flops at max settings on my beast hey! that reminds me

i might be in the market for a good deal on a used 8400gs so long as its pci express [agp is useless to me] looking for a linux card... you really might do yourself some good upgradeing to like oh i dont know, something in the 75-100 dollar range, if you need some advice on what to buy, the 9600gs performs pretty good for its price, up with the high end 8800 series cards you can see how they all stack up on that site i pasted earlier in this post. heh some things you wanna look for is the texture fill rate, and the memory bandwidth, probably the texture fill rate more than anything else.


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Anyways, The first 6 games which i plan to install to play at better settings and with better performance are
> 
> Jericho
> Crysis Demo
> ...



You can forget about Crysis and Crysis Warhead with that setup. Even the best modern hardware has trouble exploring the full graphics potential of these games. With a PCI card and Celeron D it will be really unplayble.


----------



## mrhuggles (Mar 15, 2009)

lmfao i wouldn't mind seeing pci vs pci express benchmarks on the 8400, i wouldnt be surpized if they were not really all that far off. especially not in programs that are not counting load time into it. fps wise should be more or less similar i bet

was thinking 3dmark06


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 15, 2009)

KBD said:


> You can forget about Crysis and Crysis Warhead with that setup. Even the best modern hardware has trouble exploring the full graphics potential of these games. With a PCI card and Celeron D it will be really unplayble.



Well i have no plans to play Crysis at full settings, thats crazy. I plan to play at 1280x1024 medium to high, i should get around a solid 17-30. 



mrhuggles said:


> 8400gs just absolutely smokes the crap out of the 2400 both pro and XT, you really should just look up stuff befor buying randomly


yea the 8400gs vs the 2400HD pci , which i have tested, the 2400HD is way faster. 



mrhuggles said:


> so long as your not playing anything with requirements far above doom3 you will be fine. plus it all depends on the user too, some people feel bad below 60fps, some people are fine with 30fps and ugh, some people are actually comfortable with being in the 15fps range. plus resolutions, im fine with 1360x768, alot of ppl find that to be painfully low, and alot of people are ok with 640x480


Very true. 20-40 is perfect with me.


----------



## Saakki (Mar 15, 2009)

"Well i have no plans to play Crysis at full settings, thats crazy. I plan to play at 1280x1024 medium to high, i should get around a solid 17-30."

with p3 and gf8400 gs..med-high..dude..i like mushrooms too


----------



## Mussels (Mar 15, 2009)

Saakki said:


> "Well i have no plans to play Crysis at full settings, thats crazy. I plan to play at 1280x1024 medium to high, i should get around a solid 17-30."
> 
> with p3 and gf8400 gs..med-high..dude..i like mushrooms too



17-30 frames a minute is totally possible!

Hell as much as i dont beleive its possible, i at least give him props for trying.


----------



## Saakki (Mar 15, 2009)

Mussels said:


> 17-30 frames a minute is totally possible!
> 
> Hell as much as i dont beleive its possible, i at least give him props for trying.


  haha yeah a minute  .. seriously someday his pentium3rig will set on fire cause he doing these MaD ScienTist ExpeRimenTz with it


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 15, 2009)

Lady s  you are all out of topic here ... this thread  had be converted to become a technological  arena , from a simple  " what i will do with my system ... thread " 


Stay on topic or let it die .  

The " power - performance "  , of any "slot technology" , cames from a damn expensive VGA .

The pentium III  1000 to 1400 is comparable with P4 at 2G .  

Now that you know all the facts , do the math by your selfs .


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 15, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> The Pentium III 1ghz to 1.4ghz is comparable with P4 at 2G .


I don't believe that. Unless something is wrong with the Pentium 4's or Celeron's D. 



Saakki said:


> haha yeah a minute  .. seriously someday his pentium3rig will set on fire cause he doing these MaD ScienTist ExpeRimenTz with it





Mussels said:


> 17-30 frames a minute is totally possible!
> Hell as much as i dont beleive its possible, i at least give him props for trying.





Saakki said:


> "
> with p3 and gf8400 gs..med-high..dude..i like mushrooms too



I am not talking about with my p3 and the 8400gs. I am talking about with my Dell 2.8ghz with 2GB of memory and a 8400gs or 2400HD. I should get 17-30 at 1280x1024 medium to high settings.


----------



## Saakki (Mar 15, 2009)

ah ok sry my mistake..but still i highly doubt that u will get that many fps..im using my secondary rig, AMD Athlon 64 san diego 4000+ , 2 gig ddr400  and overclocked 2600 XT AGP ..no way i can play high-med..you wont get 17-30 fps with med high..crysis laughs at my computer and i will pretty much laugh at yours too ..set it low-med and maybe u will have luck


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 15, 2009)

My 8600 GTS is crap at Crysis( and this is with a QX6700), a 8400 GS wouldnt be so good.

I would say at Medium with nothing else on, you can pull 17-20 FPS.


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

Saakki said:


> ah ok sry my mistake..but still i highly doubt that u will get that many fps..im using my secondary rig, AMD Athlon 64 san diego 4000+ , 2 gig ddr400  and overclocked 2600 XT AGP ..no way i can play high-med..you wont get 17-30 fps with med high..crysis laughs at my computer and i will pretty much laugh at yours too ..set it low-med and maybe u will have luck



Yea, i agree with that assesment. Also, this will prolly mean no eye candy or very little of it even at those settings.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 15, 2009)

Saakki said:


> ah ok sry my mistake..but still i highly doubt that u will get that many fps..im using my secondary rig, AMD Athlon 64 san diego 4000+ , 2 gig ddr400  and overclocked 2600 XT AGP ..no way i can play high-med..you wont get 17-30 fps with med high..crysis laughs at my computer and i will pretty much laugh at yours too ..set it low-med and maybe u will have luck



He could probably pull Medium with absolutely nothing else on and get about 17 or so FPS as i said.


----------



## Saakki (Mar 15, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> He could probably pull Medium with absolutely nothing else on and get about 17 or so FPS as i said.


 yeah he could..but whats the point..crysis is good / nice game because it has godly graphics..if u tear off the graphics, u get pretty avarage FPS game..yeah yeah i know he just wants to show that he can play ybernew games with ye olde computers..props for him.. 

BTW on topic..i recently changed from AGP to PCI-e 16x 2.0..what an tremendous leap ..unlucky my new PCIe mobo died so im back to AGP untill that mobo comes back from RMA..


----------



## hat (Mar 15, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I don't believe that. Unless something is wrong with the Pentium 4's or Celeron's D.


There is... it's called netburst. A 1.4ghz PIII IS comparable to a 2GHz P4


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 15, 2009)

hat said:


> There is... it's called netburst. A 1.4ghz PIII IS comparable to a 2GHz P4



Thanks Hat  ... the young ones .... looking for something to believe , than study  the past .


----------



## Saakki (Mar 15, 2009)

hat said:


> There is... it's called netburst. A 1.4ghz PIII IS comparable to a 2GHz P4


yes..ive heard about this, sometimes old ones beat teh new ones


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

hat said:


> There is... it's called netburst. A 1.4ghz PIII IS comparable to a 2GHz P4



Yep, thats a well-known fact whether u2k wants to believe it or not. Not surprising really, considering that the Core architecture has its roots in the arch which Pentium 3 is based on.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 15, 2009)

@ KBD 

I believe the core architecture is similar to the p3 arch but p3 had low clock speeds because the technology to get past that barrier wasn't there at the time.


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> @ KBD
> 
> I believe the core architecture is similar to the p3 arch but p3 had low clock speeds because the technology to get past that barrier wasn't there at the time.



its not just similar to it, its a predecessor of the Core architecture. But you are right about clock speeds, P6 architecture (Pentium Pro, P2, P3) couldnt achive high speeds at the time. Instead of continuing to develop it Intel came up with Netburst which delivered high clock speeds but was inefficent thats why a P3 at 1.4Ghz beat a P4 at 2.0Ghz. So it took higher clocked P4s to beat P3 which was quite ironic and showed that Netburts wasnt all that. Intel eventually realized that and assigned a team to start developing Core based on Pentium M which was in turn based on P6.


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 15, 2009)

So are pentium Ds netburst architecture then?
WOW, this is way off course, oh well.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> So are pentium Ds netburst architecture then?
> WOW, this is way off course, oh well.



Yes they are simply two p4's stuck together.


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 15, 2009)

I thought they were two P4s strapped together, thanks.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> I thought they were two P4s strapped together, thanks.



Same with core 2 quads and Athlon X2's.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 15, 2009)

To get back on topic, PCI-E rules.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2009)

PCI-E wins. Just like Blu-ray wins.

Is it the better technology? No. Is it the cheaper technology and is it good enough? Yes. It is a more flexible protocol? Yes.

Why did we move from parallel to serial transfer of data? Is serial transfer better? NO. But is it cheaper and also suffers less from poor interface/interlink design? Serial transfer can survive over "long distances" where parallel cannot.  Parallel suffers much more from crosstalk and interference.

We know that parallel data transfer is the PREFERRED approach in unltra-high bandwidth situations. Just look at memory and CPU interconnects. Could you imagine a CPU, DDR or GPU with 1-bit memory bus? LOL. But that is sort of what PCI-E is.

AGP is expensive on motherboard space (all those parallel links) and northbridge design.

PCI-E has removed that. And it has consolidated PCI, PCI-X and AGP. Consolidation is a good thing.

It's like asking is USB better than COM and LPT1. Well, it is a newer technology. And there are better interfacing protocols. But, actually, as a physical transport layer, is it better? Nope.

Did you know that every benchmark of an identical GPU, one on AGP, one on PCI-E, there is no performance difference, or, if there is one, the AGP wins?


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Did you know that every benchmark of an identical GPU, one on AGP, one on PCI-E, there is no performance difference, or, if there is one, the AGP wins?




Yes, but why? care to explain?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2009)

Not an expert on the issue, but I believe it is due to:

1. sideband addressing.
2. GART
3. DMA
4. Lower latency
5. Less command/ECC overhead

Of course, with a modern GPU and PCI-E v2.0 the bandwidth is so much greater than AGP that the AGP would bottleneck. However, there was a design for 64-bit AGP and also AGP x12. A 64bit AGP or AGP x16 could keep up with a modern PCI-E card, and, arguably, might be faster. But the cost of such a design would be prohibative.

Did you know there are (rare) computers with multiple AGP ports? Some with 4, some with more! They were extremely expensive to build. PCI-E wins on design and manufactur costs.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 15, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> To get back on topic, PCI-E rules.


That may be true, but IMO pci cards are good too.


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Did you know there are (rare) computers with multiple AGP ports? Some with 4, some with more! They were extremely expensive to build. PCI-E wins on design and manufactur costs.



Never seen one of those before, all the AGP boards i had/worked on had only 1 slot. But i can understand the manufacturing cost of AGP vs PCI-e.


----------



## crazy pyro (Mar 15, 2009)

What's the point of a multi-AGP system since you couldn't crossfire/ SLI on it?


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

u2konline said:


> That may be true, but IMO pci cards are good too.



They are only good if all you have are PCI slots, if you have AGP or PCI-e on the board sticking with PCI makes little sense unless the machine is not used for gaming.


----------



## Kursah (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> What's the point of a multi-AGP system since you couldn't crossfire/ SLI on it?



That begs for an AGP-E or AGPX interface that can allow up to 4 AGP X32 slots to operate in SLI or CFX for superior results! Hell it sounded good before I typed it out lol.

Personally I have no need or requirement for SLI or CF, I like 1 GPU, 1 card personally, less hassle, less heat, less trouble, more gaming! If a new AGP interface came out for future cards I would be interested.


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> What's the point of a multi-AGP system since you couldn't crossfire/ SLI on it?



Whats the point of SLI , if only 6 people of the 100 using it ... Die SLI die ...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> What's the point of a multi-AGP system since you couldn't crossfire/ SLI on it?



Remember that multi-monitor GPU's are quite new.  Go back a few years and to run 2 monitors you needed two graphics card. Want to run 4 screens, then 4 graphics cards.

If you are happy with slow PCI cards, then you were ok. If you needed more ooompf, then you needed a specialist multi-AGP board.

I think there were also some (non consumer) hi-res displays that requires more than one GPU to drive it. LIke 3600x2400 or some other crazy resolution.


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> What's the point of a multi-AGP system since you couldn't crossfire/ SLI on it?



I would think that the point is that are used in pricey workstation boards where multiple graphic cards are required fore whatever reason. Also, its my understanding that dual GPU tech is exclusive to PCI-e, correct me if i'm wrong


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2009)

KBD said:


> I would think that the point is that are used in pricey workstation boards where multiple graphic cards are required fore whatever reason. Also, its my understanding that dual GPU tech is exclusive to PCI-e, correct me if i'm wrong



Wrong. Matrox used 4 GPUs on one AGP card, for driving 4 monitors through proprietary DVU breakouts. nVidia has something similar


----------



## KBD (Mar 15, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Wrong. Matrox used 4 GPUs on one AGP card, for driving 4 monitors through proprietary DVU breakouts. nVidia has something similar



didnt know that. thnx!


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2009)

Volari XGI Duo


> http://img.tomshardware.com/uk/2003/11/07/a_new_graphics_kid_on_the_block/front-stripped.jpg


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 15, 2009)

I strongly believe  that  the many had fall victims of  the misleading marketing , that some had plan it and agree under the table . 

It was the time that Intel did the transit , from PIII to P4 , and the P4 at 2G was equally slow with the PIII . 

The SDRAM  to DDR , gave nothing other than Sandra scores,  specially at the Dual Chanel configurations . 

The market was dry from ideas that will promote sales ,  as there was nothing innovative to lead the pack . 

The biggest illusion of all , was the myth that  " Just a socket by it self " will win the war .
In simple words , low end VGA cards and new VGA slot = the future = gain . 

In all my life only fast GPUs  did the trick , and very few had the cash to get them . 
When the AGP was leading , all the people had as even today , low mid cards . 
I had to stay until the end to see one performer as the 6800GT to really move my boat fast enough. 
At the cost of 350 EUR ....   thats a crazy amount of money ...  with that money today you buy  a  large  high quality television . 

Lesson learned well ,  as consumer i will never let to be cared away of hypes & fairy tales . 

PCIE 1  or 2 or 3 or 13 ... 

I am the leader of my choices , i control the game , i control my life .


----------



## KainXS (Mar 26, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> I strongly believe  that  the many had fall victims of  the misleading marketing , that some had plan it and agree under the table .
> 
> It was the time that Intel did the transit , from PIII to P4 , and the P4 at 2G was equally slow with the PIII .
> 
> ...



and


----------



## Reventon (Mar 26, 2009)

Basically, AGP is for lower-end/older computers. PCI is second best, exists on lower-end/somewhat older computer. PCI-E is best, low-to-high-end/newer computers have PCI-E. PCI-E allows for a better transfer of information, as well as more efficient. That's why PCI-E cards always perform better.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 26, 2009)

i had a couple of old mx4000, and the PCI ones were faster than the AGP were, well in my experience they were, PCI cards are fast enough, it depends what you are doing, PCI cards are more expensive however, and in theory the AGP are much faster than PCI.  Get which ever is easiest to aqcuire, and depends on if you have the money to drop for a new mobo if you need one...




EDIT: things to consider: brand of the gfx cards, memory quality and speed, and what you need the gfx card for....


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 26, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> I strongly believe  that  the many had fall victims of  the misleading marketing , that some had plan it and agree under the table .
> 
> It was the time that Intel did the transit , from PIII to P4 , and the P4 at 2G was equally slow with the PIII .
> 
> ...



The only reason the P4's were slow is because most of them had crippling cache, the newer P3 (1.0GHz w/ 512KB L2), could whoop some of the celerons, which were shit CPU's on the 478 socket.  128KB L2 cache isn't enough to run 98 properly...LOL


----------



## kiriakost (Mar 26, 2009)

Its not that simple , the story about the CPU cache .

I had study allot about how CPU works ,  and  its all about bandwidth . 

The CPU core  even with 1kB of ram L1 , its still  fastest  than any other CPU subsystem as L2 . 


I had never see the power of the large cache in anything so far .. 
The only justification about it , are that if you run something heavy you will see the benefit. 

This tale now looks like the fairy tale about the three pigs and the wolf , many people pay their money for the book ,  but the story is fake , and the book seller rich .


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 26, 2009)

kiriakost said:


> Its not that simple , the story about the CPU cache .
> 
> I had study allot about how CPU works ,  and  its all about bandwidth .
> 
> ...



True L1 Cache is incredibly faster than L2. More L2 is good though because the cpu will take a performance hit in the event of a cache miss where the instructions its looking for aren't there. That is purely chance though and the larger L2 cache reduces the probability that the instructions won't be there.

The reason for L2 cache is that it is cheaper to implement that L1 Cache and the disadvantage is it is slower although it can be larger to hold more instructions which makes up for its low bandwidth.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 26, 2009)

in reality, AGP at the same bandwidth is better than PCI-E but AGP interface cards cost more to manufacture than PCI-E cards which is why AGP died, AGP 8X is comparable to PCI-E 8X not 4X, but the result was Crossfire and SLI, so good riddance AGP died\

The Pentium 4's were failures in my opinion though, if Intel had the technology to keep producing the Pentium 3 at the time whose architecture evolved into the current Core 2 design, AMD's athlons would not have dominated so badly at the time, and HT technology for the P4's sometimes reduced performance to boot.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 27, 2009)

At last, two gentlemen who know what they are talking about!


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> At last, two gentlemen who know what they are talking about!



Oh he's talking about me  I actually learned that from you.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 27, 2009)

u2konline said:


> That may be true, but IMO pci cards are good too.



It's still good for those that don't have a PCI-E slot, but if ya gots on you should go PCI-E.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

dont forget that those celerons had less L1 cache too....64KB, vs pentium 4's 128KB....


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

i think the p3's had 128KB L1 cache too, correct me if i'm wrong


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 31, 2009)

I am looking at cpu-z for my celeron d and it reads L1 data cache 16kb, and L2 cache 2 at 256kb. 
or am i missing something?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 31, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I am looking at cpu-z for my celeron d and it reads L1 data cache 16kb, and L2 cache 2 at 256kb.
> or am i missing something?



you're missing a lot of cache, because you have a celeron


----------



## KainXS (Mar 31, 2009)

stupidbiznitch9 said:


> dont forget that those celerons had less L1 cache too....64KB, vs pentium 4's 128KB....



no, there is no pentium 4's with 128kb l1, not even 64


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 31, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you're missing a lot of cache, because you have a celeron


Here is what it reads

My Celeron D 







But compared to my P3, this rig is light years faster then my P3, so whatever cache is , it doesn't seem to be a problem. 

My P3

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3671/20081217090726qj1.jpg
Look in the upper right


----------



## Mussels (Mar 31, 2009)

cache clocks up with the CPU.

512KB at 2GHz is gunna be faster than 1MB at 1GHz, if you get my example.

and you're comparing different sockets with different chipsets and therefore far different overall system performance.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 31, 2009)

does it matter, the most L1 cache I have seen a p4 with is like 28kb and that was the last pentium 4 made, your celeron d as 16KB just like all the other prescott celeron d's and pentium 4's but it has a quarter the l2 and is not quad pumped.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

Kain is right, lol i got the numbers with the new and old mixed up


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

Mussels said:


> and you're comparing different sockets with different chipsets and therefore far different overall system performance.




OH REALLY? ever taken a 1GHz p3 laptop apart, identical CPU socket to P4....


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 31, 2009)

stupidbiznitch9 said:


> OH REALLY? ever taken a 1GHz p3 laptop apart, identical CPU socket to P4....



dont get me wrong
Desktop P4 and P3 are totally different socket wise, but i do recall that when the Pentium 4M Launched it was on a totally different Socket from the Desktop Part, and P3 Mobility was i believe SKT 370.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

newer P3 mobile CPUs were infact same as P4, trust me i know hardware...
and there were converters for 478 desktop mobos to accept the 479 socket p4-m


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 31, 2009)

stupidbiznitch9 said:


> newer P3 mobile CPUs were infact same as P4



Eh, what ?


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

the newer models (2001 mobile P3s) have the same CPU socket as the mobile P4...


----------



## Yukikaze (Mar 31, 2009)

stupidbiznitch9 said:


> the newer models (2001 mobile P3s) have the same mobile socket as the mobile P4...



Same socket isn't exactly: "newer P3 mobile CPUs were infact same as P4"...

The original statement was: "you're comparing different sockets with different chipsets and therefore far different overall system performance" and you nitpicked on the part of the sentence which matters the least. They might have the same sockets, but the CPUs themselves are widely different and difficult to directly compare.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

True.... 

But P4's were not alot faster than P3s, was just making a point that the P3's were remarkably quick and could hold their own against P4s; and towards that end they even upgraded the socket type for the mobile procs...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 31, 2009)

stupidbiznitch9 said:


> True....
> 
> But P4's were not alot faster than P3s, was just making a point that the P3's were remarkably quick and could hold their own against P4s; and towards that end they even upgraded the socket type for the mobile procs...



so? P3 on SDram and P4 on DDR (or rambus) ram, while the P4 may have been slower in some cases, that doesnt mean that the memory subsystems werent a hell of a lot faster.

My point was in direct response to someone else: a more modern CPU with less cache can outperform an older one with more cache due to architectural differences between the CPU, the motherboard chipset, and hte overall system. Happy?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 31, 2009)

you forget transistor density comes into play aswell, compare the fastest Athlon XP to the Slowest Athlon 64 and there is that much difference.


----------



## stupidbiznitch9 (Mar 31, 2009)

A. some p4 boards used SDram....
B. P3s were faster then p4 (423 socket) in all cases
C. P3s were faster then p4 (478 socket) in some cases (depending on which proc's you compared)
D. ALL Celerons were terrible and SLOW, newer P3's meaning 1GHz+ could definitely hold their own against them, why intel killed the 478 celerons, ill never know....
E. DDR isn't a lot faster than SDram, due to case latency....


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 4, 2009)

Quick question:

You guys said that pcie is much faster then PCI, obviously alright. So have any of you had a pci card and then tried the same card but in PCIe  , how much performance difference do you see or for those who haven't done so, how much performance increase do you think you would see?

Example: The 8500GT series.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 4, 2009)

you will run out of bandwidth on the PCI bus vs AGP, at higher resolution gaming but who really runs those cards on anything bigger than 1600x1200?

Also there were P3 Mobos that utilized Rambus and DDR.


----------



## crazy pyro (May 4, 2009)

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88791&highlight=HD4350
Yukikaze benchmarked X16 being cut down to X1, X1 provides a similar bandwidth to PCI (I think so anyway, if it's different it'll be greater).


----------



## farlex85 (May 4, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Quick question:
> 
> You guys said that pcie is much faster then PCI, obviously alright. So have any of you had a pci card and then tried the same card but in PCIe  , how much performance difference do you see or for those who haven't done so, how much performance increase do you think you would see?
> 
> Example: The 8500GT series.



Stop worrying about performance. You have an 8500gt, it's not going to likely make any noticeable difference what bus it is. You said you don't need the best, so why do you care about a frame or two? You want more performance, get a better card. Sheesh :shadedshu


----------



## Yukikaze (May 4, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Quick question:
> 
> You guys said that pcie is much faster then PCI, obviously alright. So have any of you had a pci card and then tried the same card but in PCIe  , how much performance difference do you see or for those who haven't done so, how much performance increase do you think you would see?
> 
> Example: The 8500GT series.



I don't have a direct comparison vs. a 8500GT on PCI-E, but:

My HD4350, sitting in a PCI-E x16 slot results in superior performance over my 8500GT on PCI by more than two-fold in 3DMark06 and Crysis. Hit the link in my sig to check the benchmarks, but the HD4350 reaches similar framerates in Crysis 1680x1050 at low as the PCI8500GT does at 1024x768 and 1680x1050 is 2.25 times the pixels on the screen !

The 9400GT is pretty much a 8500GT and the HD4350 is around 50% more powerful than the 9400GT. Neglecting any difference between the 8500GT and 9400GT and giving the 8500GT the benefit of the doubt means that the PCI bus cripples the 8500GT by almost two-fold.

Even on a PCI-E x1 slot (Gen1, not Gen2) the HD4350 absolutely annihilates the PCI8500GT.

PCI is a severe bottleneck even to weak cards, and that's why things like the PCI9500GT/PCI8600GT make even less sense.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 4, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Stop worrying about performance. You have an 8500gt, it's not going to likely make any noticeable difference what bus it is. You said you don't need the best, so why do you care about a frame or two? You want more performance, get a better card. Sheesh :shadedshu



Actually, the difference is more like two-fold, rather than 2 more fps. Like I showed in my previous post: The HD4350 on PCI-E x16 beats the 8500GT on PCI in Crysis framerate when it is running at 1680x1050 and the PCI card is running 1024x768.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 4, 2009)

8500GT will have zero decrease or increase in performance

maybe a little more as the bus supply's more voltage and is faster overall but 8500GT is not limited by AGP in fact AGP is a lot of bandwidth and speed for the card

looking at pci tho i dont think ive seen a card that wasnt limited by its pathetic bandwidth and speeds, i had a 9200pro for a second rig i had years ago that was fine in pci but its not like it needs a lot of bandwidth

In March 2009, PowerColor released two midrange AGP cards based on the latest technology - the HD4650 and HD4670.


----------



## crazy pyro (May 4, 2009)

I referenced your thread before you got here Yukikaze. Cheers for providing exact numbers though, I hadn't read it for a month or so.


----------



## farlex85 (May 4, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> Actually, the difference is more like two-fold, rather than 2 more fps. Like I showed in my previous post: The HD4350 on PCI-E x16 beats the 8500GT on PCI in Crysis framerate when it is running at 1680x1050 and the PCI card is running 1024x768.



Shows what I know.  Interesting experiment though, and indeed that best answers his question. My point was going from pci to pci x16 won't be nearly as big of a performance difference as going from an 8500gt to oh say an 8800gt or 4770. You change buses, but the card difference is the big thing. Besides this guy always goes on about how he doesn't need the fastest and then asks questions like this, and I'll be damned if I don't get him to see how messed up his logic is.


----------



## KainXS (May 4, 2009)

wow this thread is back


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 4, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88791&highlight=HD4350
> Yukikaze benchmarked X16 being cut down to X1, X1 provides a similar bandwidth to PCI (I think so anyway, if it's different it'll be greater).



PCI E 1x has slightly more bandwidth, but not much to make a difference, its just like how ATA/IDE vs SATA was when the SATA came out.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 4, 2009)

Thanks for the information guys. I was just curious thats all, and i don't have a 8500GT for the person who said i did. I only 2 pci cards which i am using the 2400HD and the 8400GS which i am using now.

On another note, i did mention that i am going to buy 2 PCIE cards sometime this month, moving on from PCI. However i found a card at best buy a 9600gt that does not required a power connector, its only 140. 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9267401&type=product&id=1218072179509

I may end up buying that along with this:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9200991&type=product&id=1218057381797


----------



## ShadowFold (May 4, 2009)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8992593&type=product&id=1218007083797

Thats the "best buy" at Best Buy


----------



## MilkyWay (May 5, 2009)

i never said you had one i just used it as an example because you requested

$140 is a lot for a 9600gt just get an ati 4650 or a nvidia 8800gt

best buy sucks so does other places your not going to get a deal like that unless you buy second hand from the forums or another forum or a place like newegg


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 5, 2009)

Here's a 4850 for $120

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131118R


----------



## MilkyWay (May 5, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Here's a 4850 for $120
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131118R



see i told you the 9600gt was overpriced the 4850 is a good card will run everything max and isnt that powerful


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

Hold up now, if you guys are going to help me , i will listen this time and buy what you suggest. However, you always have to remember i only shop at offline retail stores and i am not really on a budget, but i want 2 video cards. One Radeon and one Geforce.  and i don't buy cards that require a connector.

Now *ShadowFold*, i forgot all about the 4670. Thats a good price for it, what about Geforce ? Would the 9600gt be good, and it doesn't even required a connector.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

The 4670 is on par with the 9600GT.. No power connector too! It's a bit more future proof too since it's DX10.1 vs just 10. 10.1 is supposedly gonna work with DX11, which in the long run would be good on your end if you're a gamer. And how do you know that 9600GT doesn't need a connector? As far as I know, they all do except for the one EVGA came out with a few days ago.

Oh and check out CompUSA!
http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4538324&CatId=3669
They have retail stores too I'm pretty sure.


----------



## a_ump (May 5, 2009)

yea, u2k i thought u were going to shop online more like at newegg? the HD 4850 is a no go as u2k doesn't like power connectors   but yea you should def skip on that 9600GT dude, and look at the HD 4670

HIS IceQ Turbo at $74.99.

That's the best performing card you'll get with no power connectors, though there was a 9800GT green card that had no power connectors, just can't find it.


----------



## oli_ramsay (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> i only shop at offline retail stores and i am not really on a budget, but i want 2 video cards. One Radeon and one Geforce.  and i don't buy cards that require a connector.



why, why and why?

I think you should just get the 9600Gt from best buy, anything else will be bottlenecked by your CPU.

You really dont need 2 cards 1 will be fine (you do know that you can't run them at the same time, right?)


----------



## a_ump (May 5, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> why, why and why?
> 
> I think you should just get the 9600Gt from best buy, anything else will be bottlenecked by your CPU.
> 
> You really dont need 2 cards 1 will be fine (you do know that you can't run them at the same time, right?)



maybe he doesn't like to show favoritism so buys 1 from both camps


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> And how do you know that 9600GT doesn't need a connector? As far as I know, they all do except for the one EVGA came out with a few days ago.


http://www.galaxytech.com/en/product.aspx?serial=22

Unless its hidden , i don't see it 

But over at 
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq

I see a power connector, unless there are 2 different ones?



ShadowFold said:


> Oh and check out CompUSA!
> http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4538324&CatId=3669
> They have retail stores too I'm pretty sure.


All in FL it seems and other places. 



a_ump said:


> yea, u2k i thought u were going to shop online more like at newegg? the HD 4850 is a no go as u2k doesn't like power connectors   but yea you should def skip on that 9600GT dude, and look at the HD 4670
> That's the best performing card you'll get with no power connectors, though there was a 9800GT green card that had no power connectors, just can't find it.



Just didn't feel like shopping online. I have been shopping at stores offline since i was like 10 or something, why stop now? I did go on a shopping spree years ago at amazon.com, only because i knew the people offline , but still, offline is where i go for business.  Best buy, walmart, FYE, staples, office depot, etc. 



oli_ramsay said:


> why, why and why?
> I think you should just get the 9600Gt from best buy, anything else will be bottlenecked by your CPU.
> You really dont need 2 cards 1 will be fine (you do know that you can't run them at the same time, right?)



I want 2 cards tho and yes i don't use them at the same time lol, i switch back and forth with them when one game doesn't work good. Like with my 8400gs and 2400HD, in some games the 2400HD beats the 8400gs seriously and in other games the 8400gs beats the 2400hd. Alot of my games run like crap and aren't stable with my 2400HD, well good thing i have my 8400gs because they work just fine with it.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

That low profile 9600GT would seem like it would be weaker than others because of lack of(or maybe it's really small?) power phases and other stuff that makes cards good.. I wouldn't trust it for gaming honestly. Just my 2c. Maybe I'm wrong. Plus the 4670, being full sized, has a better cooler. And remember, the bigger your card is the bigger your penis is


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> The 4670 is on par with the 9600GT.. No power connector too! It's a bit more future proof too since it's DX10.1 vs just 10. 10.1 is supposedly gonna work with DX11, which in the long run would be good on your end if you're a gamer. And how do you know that 9600GT doesn't need a connector? As far as I know, they all do except for the one EVGA came out with a few days ago.
> 
> Oh and check out CompUSA!
> http://www.compusa.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4538324&CatId=3669
> They have retail stores too I'm pretty sure.



DX10 and DX10.1 hardware will not run DX11.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> DX10 and DX10.1 hardware will not run DX11.



Yes it does, ask flyordie


----------



## Kursah (May 5, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> DX10 and DX10.1 hardware will not run DX11.





ShadowFold said:


> Yes it does, ask flyordie



It won't really matter till DX11 is actually out in games that will utilize it, by then we'll probably be on the 2nd generation of DX11 cards lol. They might have things planned, but it could be quite a while before we even see a good use for DX11. I'm fine with DX10, 10.1 for ati, it doesn't matter if what is on your screen looks good for what you paid for your build and you're content.


----------



## a_ump (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Just didn't feel like shopping online. I have been shopping at stores offline since i was like 10 or something, why stop now? I did go on a shopping spree years ago at amazon.com, only because i knew the people offline , but still, offline is where i go for business.  Best buy, walmart, FYE, staples, office depot, etc.




lol why stop now? because it can save you oodles of money duh  

oh and here's the 9600GT with no power connector, link and i wouldn't thk any less of it, it simply won't overclock cause of the lowered voltages to memory and core in order to get it's power requirement within the margins that the PCI-E bus can supply.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> That low profile 9600GT would seem like it would be weaker than others because of lack of(or maybe it's really small?) power phases and other stuff that makes cards good.. I wouldn't trust it for gaming honestly. Just my 2c. Maybe I'm wrong. Plus the 4670, being full sized, has a better cooler. And remember, the bigger your card is the bigger your penis is





Alright anyways, i guess when i go and buy the 2 cards, i will see what they have and keep the 4670 at the top of my list  The 9600GT has 52GB of bandwidth with GDDR3 and a 256bit bus, not to mention 512MB. I have been using cards that has 4.3 and 5.3 and 6.3 bandwidth, so i think the 9600gt if it does not have a power connector would be just fine hahaha. 

Cheers  And you never know i may find something else when i am there, who knows. 

I do have one last question tho, this is my rig
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883114066

If i would to upgrade or just buy a spare backup PSU, i will order this from newegg, only because there is no offline store in my area that has good PSU, limited them at best. So i need a PSU that has 2 i think sata power connectors or a psu that has 2 power connectors. I am not sure if you know how my PSU looks.



a_ump said:


> lol why stop now? because it can save you oodles of money duh


Not really, online is high too, everywhere is. Offline, you may have to spend about 20 or 30 bucks more, but thats not a problem with me. 



a_ump said:


> oh and here's the 9600GT with no power connector, link and i wouldn't thk any less of it, it simply won't overclock cause of the lowered voltages to memory and core in order to get it's power requirement within the margins that the PCI-E bus can supply.



I don't OC lol, when i buy something i want it to last for years, so i keep things easy on me. I like to keep things simple. Thanks for the link tho, i will keep it in mind when i go pcie shopping soon. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## farlex85 (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> If i would to upgrade or just buy a spare backup PSU, i will order this from newegg, only because there is no offline store in my area that has good PSU, limited them at best. So i need a PSU that has 2 i think sata power connectors or a psu that has 2 power connectors. I am not sure if you know how my PSU looks.
> 
> 
> I don't OC lol, when i buy something i want it to last for years, so i keep things easy on me. I like to keep things simple. Thanks for the link tho, i will keep it in mind when i go pcie shopping soon. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Most best buys have antec earthwatts PSUs which are quite solid, some thermaltakes every now and then, and at least a rocketfish which while not the best will handle your stuff fine. If the BB in your immediate area doesn't have one there's a good chance one close by does. Fry's also is a good place for PSUs.

And although I know it won't do any good, I'll continue to argue your logic, b/c well, I must. Your last statement doesn't make much sense as you have gone through 3-4 rigs in your time here. Know how many I've had in that time? 1. It hasn't changed a bit since your join date (well, I might have added new ram and I got a new case but you get the point). I consistently oc it 24/7 at what is in my specs, and have oc'd it more at other times. It's coming up on a year and a half w/ this rig and oc'ing it and guess what, no problems what so ever and it's played games great all the while. Oc'ing is not the devils work, nor is buying online. My rig has and will continue to last longer than any average pre-built lifespan b/c I take the time to learn about what I'm doing and went w/ the best options. We (or perhaps I) aren't (am not) trying to get you to destroy your rig so we can laugh at you (although it would be funny ), we're trying to help you get the most out of your computer.


----------



## a_ump (May 5, 2009)

^tru dat

u2k, you said online is expensive as well and stores are only 20-30 bucks more expensive, well its more like 30-40. which is quite a bit. but if money isn't the issue i don't understand why you don't build a better rig? it would provide u much more performance for your dollar. My only conclusion is you enjoy the challenge of not being able to run games maxed and having to tweak settings till you find the perfect spot. I find it kind of fun to figure out how much i can get out of my 7800GTX, but believe me if i had the cash i'd have a much better card(eyeballing the HD 4770 personally). not to mention your going to purchase 2 cards from a store, which will probly total 250. with that you could purchase an HD 4870 and a PSU to power it. but i, as i hear many others have, give up.:shadedshu


----------



## Yukikaze (May 5, 2009)

crazy pyro said:


> I referenced your thread before you got here Yukikaze. Cheers for providing exact numbers though, I hadn't read it for a month or so.



Thanks. I didn't notice since I was typing this after I got home from work at around 2130 (And I got home at like 2100 after a way too long day spent fighting HW issues and flashing and re-flashing ROM emulators and EEPROMs at work) and I was half-dead.

I am surprised the post came intelligible at all. 

I am going to pick up a used 8500GT for the PCI-E so I can run a direct comparison against the PCI8500GT and my sawed off HD4350 and post some numbers. Might take a while though, still plenty of projects, university projects, work projects and what not to come first...


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> I am going to pick up a used 8500GT for the PCI-E so I can run a direct comparison against the PCI8500GT and my sawed off HD4350 and post some numbers. Might take a while though, still plenty of projects, university projects, work projects and what not to come first...


Not sure if you are serious or not, but you don't have to go through the trouble. I already made up my mind on what 2 pcie cards i am going to get from best buy. 



a_ump said:


> ^tru dat
> But if money isn't the issue i don't understand why you don't build a better rig? it would provide u much more performance for your dollar.


Because i just don't feel like doing it thats why. Do i have to do what everyone else is doing?
No.  You know some people like to smoke and drink, you know what? I don't and i never will. Some people like to collect cars, i don't. See, my point. 



farlex85 said:


> And although I know it won't do any good, I'll continue to argue your logic, b/c well, I must. Your last statement doesn't make much sense as you have gone through 3-4 rigs in your time here. Know how many I've had in that time? 1. It hasn't changed a bit since your join date (well, I might have added new ram and I got a new case but you get the point). I consistently oc it 24/7 at what is in my specs, and have oc'd it more at other times. It's coming up on a year and a half w/ this rig and oc'ing it and guess what, no problems what so ever and it's played games great all the while. Oc'ing is not the devils work, nor is buying online. My rig has and will continue to last longer than any average pre-built lifespan b/c I take the time to learn about what I'm doing and went w/ the best options. We (or perhaps I) aren't (am not) trying to get you to destroy your rig so we can laugh at you (although it would be funny ), we're trying to help you get the most out of your computer.



This is my second rig if you didn't know. That Pentium III which i don't have anymore, is still working btw. So i am on my second rig thats it.  I am buying my secondary rig tho, later this year, this model:

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668233.php

Plan to turn it into a pci gamer rig, with windows 2000 and it will be meant for older games / games that does not work on Vista. 


*a_ump:*You think i care about LCD/running games at high resolutions with AAX8 and getting 60 frames and up? No i don't. You know what type of monitor i am running with my new rig?

A $15 dollar thrift store 17inch monitor from 2003. Thats how i am gaming in 2009 baby! 

Anyways, i am very happy with my new rig. DMC4 at 1280x960 high to very high, 20-30, L4D 1280x960 high to very high no AA, 17-29 on my 2400HD and 20-40 on my 8400GS, this is all PCI cards btw. Also, early today i was playing 2 older games which came out in 2006, always had trouble running them on my Pentium III, use to get 15-20fps. Now i get 80-244 frames. lol So believe me, i am very very happy with my computer


----------



## hat (May 5, 2009)

You... can't be... serious... pairing PCI card with that (otherwise kickass) Core 2 Quad based gateway? If you're worried about video cards not being compatable with older games, guess what, my 9800gt ran anything from Crysis to Quake. I would buy that computer, put a beefy video card in there and make your current rig your secondary rig and use THAT for old games. It just doesn't make sense to run Crysis on a single core Athlon and then turn around and play Quake 3 on a Core 2 Quad machine... that's like firing at an enemy tank with a .22 pistol whilist using the SRAW on enemy soldiers.


----------



## farlex85 (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> This is my second rig if you didn't know. That Pentium III which i don't have anymore, is still working btw. So i am on my second rig thats it.  I am buying my secondary rig tho, later this year, this model:
> 
> http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668233.php
> 
> ...



Could've sworn you had a celeron D rig, where did that go? That makes 3 by my count. You sure you don't drink? If your happy that's fine, whatever works for ya great. Your logic is terrible though, and I am intrinsically obligated to continue to point this out to you.  For instance, the bold statements show a direct contradiction in your own wishes. Your being rebellious for no reason and depriving yourself of what you want. Accept the knowledge, it's good.....


----------



## Yukikaze (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Not sure if you are serious or not, but you don't have to go through the trouble. I already made up my mind on what 2 pcie cards i am going to get from best buy.



It is not only your mind that needs making up, though. There is a lack of such a comparison on the net and it is of interest to me as well. Besides, a 2nd hand 8500GT would cost next to nothing.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Could've sworn you had a celeron D rig


Um yea i did, for about a month and it blew up, well the PSU anyway. But that really don't count, the rig was already damage when i bought it, and it was only 40 bucks. The power socket was coming apart when i bought it. As i was taking out the power plug from the PSU, sparks flew and the thing slightly blew apart. I only bought it because it was only well 40 dollars. So really i had success with prebuilt rigs, the pentium III, now i am using my AMD, and soon i will be using both my amd and quad core.  



farlex85 said:


> If your happy that's fine, whatever works for ya great. Your logic is terrible though, and I am intrinsically obligated to continue to point this out to you.  For instance, the bold statements show a direct contradiction in your own wishes. Your being rebellious for no reason and depriving yourself of what you want. Accept the knowledge, it's good.....


Well i was just saying i don't strive for the best performance in gaming. But i don't mind it either, thats why i said in most of my older games that ran terrible on my Pentium, i now get well above 100 fps in them, sometimes 240. I am happy with pretty much any type of performance,  20-30 is fine for me. 



hat said:


> You... can't be... serious... pairing PCI card with that (otherwise kickass) Core 2 Quad based gateway? If you're worried about video cards not being compatable with older games, guess what, my 9800gt ran anything from Crysis to Quake. I would buy that computer, put a beefy video card in there and make your current rig your secondary rig and use THAT for old games. It just doesn't make sense to run Crysis on a single core Athlon and then turn around and play Quake 3 on a Core 2 Quad machine... that's like firing at an enemy tank with a .22 pistol whilist using the SRAW on enemy soldiers.



Yea i know it sounds backwards, i was saying to myself this will be interesting. So i said, hmm buy a quad core and make it into a power PCI gaming rig and install windows 2000 on it and only use it for my older games or games that don't work with Vista, should be fun 

Btw, running older games with new cards is not the problem, its the OS. Windows 2000 is the best OS for running older games.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Yea i know it sounds backwards, i was saying to myself this will be interesting. So i said, hmm buy a quad core and make it into a power PCI gaming rig and install windows 2000 on it and only use it for my older games or games that don't work with Vista, should be fun



Holy crap....mate: "power", "pci" and "gaming" do not belong in the same sentence, I think we established this already. 

This is a complete and utter waste of processing power (And money! Why does a rig running Windows 2000 would need a Quad Core ? You gain nothing and waste money).

Just reverse the roles of your rigs and be done with it. The Athlon will do great along with your love for PCI cards for running older things, and the Core 2 Quad will do a great job (When paired with a good video card) in modern and tomorrow's titles.


----------



## hat (May 5, 2009)

U2konline, next time you buy a computer please just send the money to me, I need a Mosin Nagant and 440 rounds of 7.62x54R, should cost around a total of $200.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 5, 2009)

hat said:


> U2konline, next time you buy a computer please just send the money to me, I need a Mosin Nagant and 440 rounds of 7.62x54R, should cost around a total of $200.



This is totally siggable.


----------



## hat (May 5, 2009)

Heh. Well, I *am* getting a Mosin Nagant some time in June, this should cost abput $100. But you can't use a gun without ammo so I need some 7.62x54R, my uncle looked it up but all he saw were huge amounts. 440 rounds for $90 is dirt cheap but once I buy that rifle, I won't have enough money left to get the ammo for it unless I buy a small amount.


----------



## Yukikaze (May 5, 2009)

hat said:


> Heh. Well, I *am* getting a Mosin Nagant some time in June, this should cost abput $100. But you can't use a gun without ammo so I need some 7.62x54R, my uncle looked it up but all he saw were huge amounts. 440 rounds for $90 is dirt cheap but once I buy that rifle, I won't have enough money left to get the ammo for it unless I buy a small amount.



I had little doubt you really wanted the rifle, I just totally agree with the "better monetary investment" thing you're referring to...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Yes it does, ask flyordie



Nope. It sure doesn't. Ask Wizz. Link


----------



## KainXS (May 6, 2009)

its like getting a getting a Lamborghini and sticking a shiet transmission in it and flattening the tires and driving like that, he always says the most awesome things dosen't he, a quad core with a pci card,

wtf

wtf

Quad core don't even work properly with 2000, it only will see 2 cores, 


troll


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2009)

Troll to the core man. You guys just keep feeding him too.


----------

