most of my friends are buying an 8600GT or Ultra, a few the GTS and one has a GTX. Most have Vista already also, DX10 cards will be quite affoardable and Vista -OEM for Home Basic is 79 dollars so its not a long stretch to get vista DX10 when you think 100 for an 8300GT and 79 for Vista, you should be fine
The NVIDIA DX10 AGP Thread
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
most of my friends are buying an 8600GT or Ultra, a few the GTS and one has a GTX. Most have Vista already also, DX10 cards will be quite affoardable and Vista -OEM for Home Basic is 79 dollars so its not a long stretch to get vista DX10 when you think 100 for an 8300GT and 79 for Vista, you should be fine
I'm concerned and dismayed that you somehow equate "felt smoother" as a valid scientific way of proving your case. If you can't understand the science of how this stuff works, then there is no reason for you to be in this thread trying to defend such a nonsensical stance. As such, you've already lost this disagreement with your lack of anything solid to base your claim on, and I will have no further discourse with you on this subject.
Back to Demi's post: I really still want to know a case where an AGP and PCI-E version of the exact same video card would somehow create a performance disparity on a modern game. Even if we can't give out exact details, which is understandable, I still want some sort of hypothetical something to give us somewhere to go.
Absolutely requiring full duplex bandwidth from GPU to main memory might be a reason, except that even in PCI-E, that sort of dependency would be utter insanity. If there's some other reason why AGP is such an unworthy competitor, I'd like to know it.
rendezvous
Regular
But why wouldn't it support GF8-series? It is still a PCIe<->AGP bridge and should be able to handle any PCIe chip. It _should_ even be able to handle PCIe 2.0 parts which some of the comming GF8 GPUs could be.
My bet is that the bridge chip would work fine but that NV doesn't find it worth the effort of a PCB redesign and the support for a new AGP product in the GF8 family.
feels smoother is important and used widely by review sites, the fact a game feels smoother is very much valid, and i have no reason to prove that something runs smoother, the fact that it does is enough. There are sevral reasons why a faster CPU will raise min FPS
Out of curiosity... Are you a [H]ard|OCP regular?
no i am not, i am part of this forum and amd support forums
I'm quite sure NV doesn't find it worth their time to build a reference PCB for anything AGP, but that likely wouldn't stop an AIB vendor who wanted to try. The only real question would be this: would an AIB get their money back from such a venture? Maybe they could in a middle of the road chip because the pricing could be (hopefully) kept competitive, but I'd wager the PCB requirements of a full G80 just would never be economical in an AGP platform.
Blazkowicz
Legend
we're talking G86 and G84.. in that case the PCB would still be the same one, from 6600 and 7600 series. and I could see those cards selling better than 7800GS.
Good call; I forgot they're pin compatible with the 7600 series. in which case I'd agree; they would likely sell much better than the 7800 GS.
The question is:
Does Nvidia even have any BR02 chips left to fulfill a hypothetical "8600 GTS AGP8x" request for some of their partners ?
I mean, that chip first appeared on the Geforce PCX series back in early 2004 and they haven't done an update for a long time (the "BR03" is a completely different processor, used on the 7900GX2 and 7950GX2 to make single graphics card/dual GPU SLI a reality).
Does Nvidia even have any BR02 chips left to fulfill a hypothetical "8600 GTS AGP8x" request for some of their partners ?
I mean, that chip first appeared on the Geforce PCX series back in early 2004 and they haven't done an update for a long time (the "BR03" is a completely different processor, used on the 7900GX2 and 7950GX2 to make single graphics card/dual GPU SLI a reality).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albuquerque
Well funny enough, the 3.8Ghz prescott is trading blows with your A64 4000. Using "logic", the additional 400mhz of processor speed and 320mhz of bus speed on my system would put me above the Pentium 570 that is equal to your vaunted A64 4000+, which then puts me out of your "budget" class. And you know what? Even if my entire computer IS budget class, that still doesn't mean my video card isn't bottlenecking it.
So a review that points out how blatently wrong you are is somehow immaterial? Sure, I'm willing to bet my maximum framerates might get better in several cases, but my maximum framerates aren't what's going to kill my gaming experience. What really presents a problem is minimum framerates; and if you had decided to stop and listen for a moment, you'd find that a faster CPU wasn't increasing the minimum framerates of the games that were being tested in most cases.
Can you guess why? Because, as I've been telling you, the minimum attainable framerate at these kinds of resolutions are not being limited by the CPU, but by the video card. You can sit here and tell me how right you are all day, but until you can PROVE otherwise (just as the thread I linked that you ignored) then what you are saying is still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candle_86
A CPU feeds data to the GPU, if the CPU is to slow the data isnt getting fed to the GPU faster, even at higher res with a better CPU your framerates go up no matter what. Take into account this, a friend was using a 6800GT with a sempron 2600 754, he upgraded to an Athlon 64 3700 754 and his framerates at 1600x1200 became playable with AA on, because his VPU was now getting fed data, and this was back in early 05, and a 1950pro is alot fater than a 6800GT, so you would want a faster CPU to feed the data. Im not saying get a 7600GS and a core2 duo, im saying get a core2 duo and the dual VSTA from ASrocks and experince what that card can really do at high res with AA and AF
Albuquerque is correct on what he has said.
Most graphics data processing is done with the GPU, not the CPU, as the GPU and the number of data pipes makes a hugh difference on the framerates, NOT the CPU.
I've been building PC's over 25 years and have a good knowledge on the hardware, as I keep up with most technical info on the hardware related to computers, and forcoming developments and technologies.
One good example I have experienced past few days, I am still using an Athlon XP CPU, and instead of buying an Intel Duo Core 2, and new motherboard, RAM, and PCI Express graphics card, and PSU, I decided to hold off on that a bit longer, and try to ppush more usage out of my computer.
My computer, an Athlon XP 2400+ running @ 2 Ghz, 1 gb RAM, GF5700LE 256mb and my framerates in games like SWG, EQ2, WoW, were well enough that I don't have framerate issues, but Oblivion, and Vanguard, I do. In Oblivion, it was still somewhat playable when I turn down the settings to the lowest possible, and still jumpy framerates just a bit, that it wasn't fun to play. I play Vanguard with the 5700LE, and I was getting 0 to 2 FPS, and after doing some tweaks to the INI file of the game, got it too 2 to 4 FPS.
From my knowledge of hardware, I knew the CPU was NOT the bottleneck of my graphics performance, it was the graphics card itself.
Well, I bought the BFG 7800GS AGP.
As a great example, my framerates went from being 2 to 4, too an average FPS of 20 to 25 FPS in city / town areas, to as high as 40 to 50 FPS in open areas.
Thats a very tremendious increase in framerates.
Well, about the CPU handling the data, CPU doesn't handle that much graphics data, the GPU does. CPU only handles the transfer of the data between the GPU, CPU, but almost all graphics processing is done by the GPU.
From what I see, I think a DX 10 AGP card can be done, but from a marketing standpoint, kinda doubt that will ever happen, as there may not be enough demad for new AGP cards using DX 10, as many are trying to push out more with the new standard, PCIe
Gainward made 1500 or 2500 , 7800GS cards that have 24 pipes, and are considered the VERY best graphics card you can get on an AGP system.
There are some 20 pipes 7800's but most 7800's have 16 pipes.
Opt
Originally Posted by Albuquerque
Well funny enough, the 3.8Ghz prescott is trading blows with your A64 4000. Using "logic", the additional 400mhz of processor speed and 320mhz of bus speed on my system would put me above the Pentium 570 that is equal to your vaunted A64 4000+, which then puts me out of your "budget" class. And you know what? Even if my entire computer IS budget class, that still doesn't mean my video card isn't bottlenecking it.
So a review that points out how blatently wrong you are is somehow immaterial? Sure, I'm willing to bet my maximum framerates might get better in several cases, but my maximum framerates aren't what's going to kill my gaming experience. What really presents a problem is minimum framerates; and if you had decided to stop and listen for a moment, you'd find that a faster CPU wasn't increasing the minimum framerates of the games that were being tested in most cases.
Can you guess why? Because, as I've been telling you, the minimum attainable framerate at these kinds of resolutions are not being limited by the CPU, but by the video card. You can sit here and tell me how right you are all day, but until you can PROVE otherwise (just as the thread I linked that you ignored) then what you are saying is still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candle_86
A CPU feeds data to the GPU, if the CPU is to slow the data isnt getting fed to the GPU faster, even at higher res with a better CPU your framerates go up no matter what. Take into account this, a friend was using a 6800GT with a sempron 2600 754, he upgraded to an Athlon 64 3700 754 and his framerates at 1600x1200 became playable with AA on, because his VPU was now getting fed data, and this was back in early 05, and a 1950pro is alot fater than a 6800GT, so you would want a faster CPU to feed the data. Im not saying get a 7600GS and a core2 duo, im saying get a core2 duo and the dual VSTA from ASrocks and experince what that card can really do at high res with AA and AF
Albuquerque is correct on what he has said.
Most graphics data processing is done with the GPU, not the CPU, as the GPU and the number of data pipes makes a hugh difference on the framerates, NOT the CPU.
I've been building PC's over 25 years and have a good knowledge on the hardware, as I keep up with most technical info on the hardware related to computers, and forcoming developments and technologies.
One good example I have experienced past few days, I am still using an Athlon XP CPU, and instead of buying an Intel Duo Core 2, and new motherboard, RAM, and PCI Express graphics card, and PSU, I decided to hold off on that a bit longer, and try to ppush more usage out of my computer.
My computer, an Athlon XP 2400+ running @ 2 Ghz, 1 gb RAM, GF5700LE 256mb and my framerates in games like SWG, EQ2, WoW, were well enough that I don't have framerate issues, but Oblivion, and Vanguard, I do. In Oblivion, it was still somewhat playable when I turn down the settings to the lowest possible, and still jumpy framerates just a bit, that it wasn't fun to play. I play Vanguard with the 5700LE, and I was getting 0 to 2 FPS, and after doing some tweaks to the INI file of the game, got it too 2 to 4 FPS.
From my knowledge of hardware, I knew the CPU was NOT the bottleneck of my graphics performance, it was the graphics card itself.
Well, I bought the BFG 7800GS AGP.
As a great example, my framerates went from being 2 to 4, too an average FPS of 20 to 25 FPS in city / town areas, to as high as 40 to 50 FPS in open areas.
Thats a very tremendious increase in framerates.
Well, about the CPU handling the data, CPU doesn't handle that much graphics data, the GPU does. CPU only handles the transfer of the data between the GPU, CPU, but almost all graphics processing is done by the GPU.
From what I see, I think a DX 10 AGP card can be done, but from a marketing standpoint, kinda doubt that will ever happen, as there may not be enough demad for new AGP cards using DX 10, as many are trying to push out more with the new standard, PCIe
Gainward made 1500 or 2500 , 7800GS cards that have 24 pipes, and are considered the VERY best graphics card you can get on an AGP system.
There are some 20 pipes 7800's but most 7800's have 16 pipes.
Opt
Blazkowicz
Legend
now 7900GS and 7950GT AGP are coming 
, resp. 20 and 24 pipes. (7800GS cards already being using G71 chips, so the cards aren't that new imo).
there's x1950 pro and XT on the ATI side, and rumored RV630 but who knows for that one.
, resp. 20 and 24 pipes. (7800GS cards already being using G71 chips, so the cards aren't that new imo).there's x1950 pro and XT on the ATI side, and rumored RV630 but who knows for that one.
now 7900GS and 7950GT AGP are coming
there's x1950 pro and XT on the ATI side, and rumored RV630 but who knows for that one.
I love my 24-pipe 512mb G71 Gainward AGP card
I didn't know they were announcing 7950GT on AGP though, that's pretty cool! I'll have to check it out...
Here is some 'real life' data on CPU speeds and performance in games. As I've experienced with processor upgrades and overclocks, the results are quite good. Good as in a better CPU most certainly helps, even with demanding games at high resolutions.
Sadly I don't run high resolutions here, but I have seen the effects of different processors and clockspeeds on the machine in the post I linked to first hand.
Check the average and minimum framerates when going from 1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz @19x12
Note that I'm not trying to suggest that a CPU should be the first port of call to improve performance, but it certainly shouldn't be ignored.
Sadly I don't run high resolutions here, but I have seen the effects of different processors and clockspeeds on the machine in the post I linked to first hand.
Check the average and minimum framerates when going from 1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz @19x12
Note that I'm not trying to suggest that a CPU should be the first port of call to improve performance, but it certainly shouldn't be ignored.
Last edited by a moderator: