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
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
Re: PCI (Not PCI-E) vs AGP
Think higher resolutions, HDMI outs, multiple monitors, stuff like that.Originally posted by bigbeark View Post
It's not all about speed.
Leave a comment:
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
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 rageLeave a comment:
-
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.
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?
Leave a comment: