PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

[bigbeark]

Some people opt for 64MB through 256MB PCI cards in preference to the 4MB ATI-Rage onboard AGP video on server boards.

When I wkipedia this I find that 4xAGP has a throughput of 1066Mbs, 2XAGP is 533Mbs vs 133Mbs for PCI cards. So it would seem pointless to use the PCI card.

I have a 54MB PCI card and it seems marginally faster than the Rage Onboard, but perhaps it's just wisful thinking. I see people paying big bucks for 256MB PCI video cards. Are they deluded?

[shovenose]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

there is nothing wrong with PCI graphics cards. in fact, if its like one of mine, an ati radeon x600 or x300 (dont remember havent looked at it for a while) with 256mb ram then yes its way faster than an onboard ati rage

[ratdude747]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

if bandwidth is not a bottleneck but gpu RAM (or gpu power) is, then go for pci. onboard tends to be crap... it may be connected internally by pci for all we know.

[shovenose]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

and keep in mind many higher-end agp cards are pci-express with a little conversion chip. same goes with pci and agp.

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

Some people opt for 64MB through 256MB PCI cards in preference to the 4MB ATI-Rage onboard AGP video on server boards.

Think higher resolutions, HDMI outs, multiple monitors, stuff like that. It's not all about speed.

[stj]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

server video is designed to not do much more than console output, hence a whole 4meg of vram!

i actually have a pile of pci cards like this intended for - and pulled from servers.

[Wizard]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

Stj is correct. That is what INTENDED use.

PCI has small bandwidth and quickly filled up if there is high texture load.

AGP was nice bump up but that was from PII days. That is where PCI-E came in later.

Yes there is one generation where some cards had PCI-E to AGP bridge chipset on some cards. But not many generations. I don't recall if ATi(AMD) had done this but I KNOW Nvidia did.

Cheers, Wizard

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

I don't recall if ATi(AMD) had done this

They're still doing it actually. HD3850/4650/4670 are available in AGP flavor too.

[BigTroll]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

there was a great forum troll named stilllengendary on overclock.net, his specialy was using a 600mhz Pentium /// Gateway and he kept buying stupid PCI graphics cards for it, like a radeon hd 2600 pro then back to the 6200TC and they all run like crap, he would troll about running crysis on it, however it was of good comical value for me so i wouldn't mind, but yeah a ati rage is really slow so even putting in a pci geforce 2 your gonna see huge improvement.

ENJOY TLDR WOT

[mockingbird]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

Reminds me of that guy on StorageReview who spent a whole lot of money on his Dual Pentium Pro setup. Boy did they ever rip on him.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

There's another big difference.
- On most consumer mobos the PCI BUS Bandwidth is SHARED by all the PCI devices [which in addition to what is in the slots that usually includes drive controllers, USB, LAN & Sound] so that 133Mb/s you cite is not all available for video bandwidth. Much of it is being used for other things like data transfer to-from drives. If you have PCI video that hangs when a hard or optical drive spins up then an over loaded PCI Bus is probably why.
-
AGP on the other hand is a dedicated [Independent] BUS so the whole Bandwidth can be used for Video.
-
Server based boards [boards with server chipsets] usually have multiple Independent PCI Busses and some of them are 64-bit vice 32-bit so their total PCI bandwidth is HUGE compared to consumer based boards.

The 133Mb/s is for 32-bit 33MHz PCI.
- The was also a 32-bit 66MHz option [using the standard short PCI slot as in NOT a PCI-X slot] that could do 266Mb/s. It was 'legal' but implemented on very few motherboards because to make it work they needed either [at least two] Independent PCI Busses or for everything PCI to run at 66MHz. - If they had to 'wire' Independent PCI Busses anyway it made more sense to use a PCI-X 64-bit slot. [The only boards I've seen it on were too proprietary to be useful to me. I -think- they were for some obscure specific-purpose IBM Server but it's been a while so maybe it wasn't IBM.]
- There WERE a number of PCI cards made for the slot because they could do 32-bit at either 33MHz or 66MHz.
Great cards to find if you like overclocking 33Mhz PCI Busses.
If you find a standard length PCI card that is keyed for both 3.3v and 5v then you MIGHT have found one of those.
Not all dual volt PCI cards can do 66MHz but all that can do 66MHz should be 3.3v compatible.
.

[Shodan486]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

AGP was nice bump up but that was from PII days.

Cannot agree, we've seen boards being made in 2005 still with an AGP slot present, think Foxconn made some and MSI, also we have AsRock crazy solution boards with both PCI-E & AGP buses...so no, in PII days AGP wasn't a big deal, after Pentium III / Athlon generations the AGP4x held accountable superiority in bandwidth solutions against PCI/PCI64...Had an MX400 in one of my socket7 boards with AGP2x of course, the cpu was 350 K6-2 at 100FSB with 512MB RAM - warcraftIII sucked on it all the way.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

Cannot agree, ...... the AGP4x held accountable superiority in bandwidth solutions against PCI/PCI64...

And I can't agree with that.
AGP4x was 1066 MB/s [and even 8x was only 2133 MB/s].
PCI-X allowed and varied between 266 MB/s and 4.3 GB/s depending on version.
.

[BigTroll]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

i think the earlier PowerMac G3s blue and white had a 66mhz PCI slot for the rage 128 graphics.

[Wizard]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

PCBONEZ is correct.

Mine was very kind sarcasm to AGP. Even 8x was choking on the texture bandwidth.

PCI-E was real saver. And cheaper too rather than trying to buy latest AGP cards.

Cheers, Wizard

[ratdude747]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

i think the earlier PowerMac G3s blue and white had a 66mhz PCI slot for the rage 128 graphics.

as did the original G4 graphite. it was essentially a bw G3 board w/o adb with a G4 cpu in a different color. the G4 sawtooth used AGP.... and that was the end of pci video cards in macs.

oddly the other pci slots in both boards were pci-X length as well... but 33mhz (marked on the boards).

[PCBONEZ]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

oddly the other pci slots in both boards were pci-X length as well... but 33mhz (marked on the boards).

I'm guessing 64-bit @/33MHz. [266Mb/s]
Unusual but legal by the specifications.

They probably expected the next chipset to support 66MHz and to be the same 'foot-print' so they could use the same reference board with only slight adjustments.

Or: Sometimes what looks like a PCI-X slot, isn't. In that case it's a proprietary slot for a riser with multiple 32-bit PCI slots.
The 'normal' section is just 32-bit PCI [so a card will work] and the extension is more 32-bit PCI(s) for the riser. [Less the power which goes through the first section to save on # of slot pins needed.].
.

[ratdude747]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

not a riser, thats for sure. 64 bit would be my guess.

[Shodan486]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

And I can't agree with that.
AGP4x was 1066 MB/s [and even 8x was only 2133 MB/s].
PCI-X allowed and varied between 266 MB/s and 4.3 GB/s depending on version.
.

BONEZ, we're you drinking last night? I can't see any comment on "PCI-X", I wrote specifically PCI/PCI64. PCI-X runs at 133MHz, twice as faster as AGP and has a variety of addressing features (as I recall) against AGP, which supports side band addressing (something's popping in my mind PCI-X has some more) - YES, PCI-X is definitely faster than AGP, but not PCI64 or PCI at 66MHz.

To Wizard - there's is no practical performance difference between AGP4x / AGP8x.

[Per Hansson]

Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP

Even the latest graphics cards for PCI Express see limited scaling by the higher bandwidths.
See this for some numbers if you are curious;
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...press_Scaling/