ATI R520 will be AGP also

I think the reason why PCIE hasn't really taken off and the reason why people seem to want to stick with agp is for a number of reasons. for starters there appears to be no performance improvement over agp8x, on paper it looks better but in real world apps you just can't see any benefit.

Another thing is a lot of people may be happy with their current systems performance and have stable mobo's, but may want for graphics performance, having to go to a new mobo just causes a lot of hassles for the upgrader and especially since pcie mobo's are still 1st gen there are bound to be lots of issues, agp boards are relatively stable and hassle free these days. Also another annoying factor is power supplies, pcie mobos require all new power supplies which is another cost. So a simple graphics upgrade turns into a power supply and mobo upgrade too, and since the previous too are newer tech the prices are more expensive than exsisting mobo's and power supplies.

You've got more hassle, have to spend more money for pretty much zero benefit in performance. The only beneficial thing the PCIE has contributed is the ability to SLI i think, but if you're not interested in SLI, there isn't much point to PCIE for you. Also 4 gig of bandwidth vs 2 gig isn't substantial enough imo for developers to stop storing and caching stuff on video cards. We also have 512mb cards comming so the extra bandwidth PCIE provided won't probably be used in the future. Who knows. The only benefit I see that PCIE provides is for video encoding the full duplex bandwidth can make an impact, for games i just don't see it yet nor see anything in the future that's goona push it, especially when SLI systems are the top end and the cards are limited to 8x in that config.
 
mozmo hit the nail on the head with all his points.

In my case, I don't foresee any compelling reason for going pci-e for at least 12 months. If there's no agp r5xx I'll probably get an x800 of some sort; that'll be a fine enough upgrade.

Mobo + cpu + vidcard + (maybe) memory is far more expensive then vidcard only. It's a "best bang for the buck" issue.
 
I couldn't have said it better.

Is this really such a surprise? How many years after AGP came about was it before PCI graphics cards started disappearing. PCIE has only been on the market for about a year or less; there are still many people with AGP boards (many of whom upgraded only a couple months before PCIE boards started showing up) who have absolutely no interest in PCIE for at least another year, especially considering even top end cards aren't showing any difference between AGP and PCIE yet, nor do I think they will be until at least the next major generation.

YeuEmMaiMai - ATI did hurt themselves by disregarding AGP in the case of the X800 and X800 XL (both of which provide the best price to performance ratio when compared to the competition), however the R420 was the first to be released, the R423 came later as CyFactor pointed out. I don't know how you can claim ATI didn't have an AGP card.
 
mozmo said:
Another thing is a lot of people may be happy with their current systems performance and have stable mobo's, but may want for graphics performance, having to go to a new mobo just causes a lot of hassles for the upgrader...

I have one thing to add to that.

CPU performance has slowed quite drastically over the past 18 months. Had CPU performance been on the usual "doubling every 2 years or so" track as it has been historically, we'd be looking at 6 Ghz+ CPUs today.

So, normally there would be a pretty healthy market for PCI-E mobos...if for no other reason than they'd be supporting the latest CPUs, which traditionally had much, much better performance than the CPUs of 18 months ago.

The lack of significant CPU upgrades has hurt the adoption of new motherboards...all IMO.
 
WaltC said:
Yes, but I think the problem for ATi AGP production was simply a capacity problem as OEM demands for their chips running on PCIe PCBs ate up most of their raw gpu manufacturing capacity and that they'd have hit the AGP market a good deal sooner if they'd have been able to ramp up their capcity a good deal faster (I think the "bridge problem" was just not that significant.)
The fabs have not been full.
 
The capacity issues are supposed to mainly only relate to the products from TSMC's 130nm low-k process.
 
DaveBaumann said:
The capacity issues are supposed to mainly only relate to the products from TSMC's 130nm low-k process.

Yes, and this was reiterated by ATI brass in a recent CSFB conference. Too many ASICs sharing a limited 0.13u low-k foundry capacity. It's obvious that the intent is for X850 Pro (0.13u low-k) to be far scarcer (and less popular) than X800 Pro was, otherwise the capacity issue would not have improved. X800XL on 0.11u will relieve 0.13u capacity such that more R480/481 boards can be shipped.
 
Back
Top