Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is the difference between AGP video card and regular ..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 8, 2004 8:00:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

What is the basic difference between AGP video card and regular video
card? I saw some AGP cards with notations of 4X, 6X, etc. What is
that? Are there some requirements/sychronizations between AGP video
cards and monitors? [e.g. for CRTs, the practical vertical frequency
is the lower common denominator between the video card and monitor.
i.e. if you have a monitor capable of 100Hz at 1024 x 780 resolution,
you need a video card with that capability; otheewise it will run at
the lower frequency of the video card; and vice versa.)

Can I use a AGP video card (nVidia Vanta16 RivaTNT2 16MB AGP Video
Card) with an old Sony monitor (Trinitron multiscan 200ES)?

TIA
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 9, 2004 3:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

The term AGP refers to the socket and chipset on the motherboard that the
video card plugs into. You have to match the AGP speed, and hence voltage,
of the model of video card and the model of motherboard you are intending to
use.

--
DaveW



<0b3hks001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:64e817b9.0410081500.1aba098a@posting.google.com...
> What is the basic difference between AGP video card and regular video
> card? I saw some AGP cards with notations of 4X, 6X, etc. What is
> that? Are there some requirements/sychronizations between AGP video
> cards and monitors? [e.g. for CRTs, the practical vertical frequency
> is the lower common denominator between the video card and monitor.
> i.e. if you have a monitor capable of 100Hz at 1024 x 780 resolution,
> you need a video card with that capability; otheewise it will run at
> the lower frequency of the video card; and vice versa.)
>
> Can I use a AGP video card (nVidia Vanta16 RivaTNT2 16MB AGP Video
> Card) with an old Sony monitor (Trinitron multiscan 200ES)?
>
> TIA
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 9, 2004 6:24:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> What is the basic difference between AGP video card and regular video
> card? I saw some AGP cards with notations of 4X, 6X, etc. What is

AGP is just way to connect the graphics card to your motherboard. The 2X,
4X, 8X are connection speed, 4X is twice the speed of 2X, 8X is twice the
speed of 4X and so on. You can for example put AGP 8X card into AGP 4X
motherboard but the speed will only be 4X.

> that? Are there some requirements/sychronizations between AGP video
> cards and monitors? [e.g. for CRTs, the practical vertical frequency

None, AGP is a bus which connects the graphics card into the motherboard of
your computer. The graphics card is connected to the display device using
different kinds of connectors like DB15, BNC, DVI and others. Usually
graphics cards (for PC) have either DB15 or DVI output connector(s) and DVI
can be usually converted to DB15 because DVI-I connectors should have DVI-A
(A= Analogic) pins connected and used. There are different kinds of
connectors at both ends: graphics card and monitor and you can try to
determine what you got and maybe ask here what recommendations you are
given. For example if you have DVI on both monitor and graphics card it
should be the best choise.

> Can I use a AGP video card (nVidia Vanta16 RivaTNT2 16MB AGP Video
> Card) with an old Sony monitor (Trinitron multiscan 200ES)?

I am not going to check from the web what the specs of 200ES are but it very
likely has DB15 and/or BNC input. As long as you have the right cable you
can hook it up to the TNT2 and it should work (I cannot guarantee that the
card or monitor are not broken). <- Sick world that have to put that kind of
disclaimers, but the world changes.. if I don't it is a bomb-sure invitation
for someone to find 'error' and bash for it. *sigh*

Have fun!
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 9, 2004 5:29:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
news:ck77ja$hkp$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>> What is the basic difference between AGP video card and regular video
>> card? I saw some AGP cards with notations of 4X, 6X, etc. What is
>
> AGP is just way to connect the graphics card to your motherboard. The 2X,
> 4X, 8X are connection speed, 4X is twice the speed of 2X, 8X is twice the
> speed of 4X and so on. You can for example put AGP 8X card into AGP 4X
> motherboard but the speed will only be 4X.
>

Small correction: The AGP 'speed' does not make any significant difference
performance-wise. Advanced Graphics Port is just a different (newer) standard to
Peripheral Component Interconnect. By definition all AGP cards should be faster than PCI
cards. Newer cards (mostly with 8X emblazoned on them) may not work in older computers due
to them using a different voltage.

-
Ad
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 12:17:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Small correction: The AGP 'speed' does not make any significant difference
> performance-wise. Advanced Graphics Port is just a different (newer)
standard to

Same way as having car with top speed of 300 kph and 150 kph, if you don't
drive faster than 150 kph, indeed there is no difference. AGP 8x _does_ have
twice the _bandwidth_ over AGP 4x, it is a different matter if this is used
by applications. But that is nitpicking so chill out ffs, always, always
have to mention every minute little tiny dickwick detail otherwise someone
corrects you.

Alright. Background information: I work for a 3D graphics hardware vendor
and I have been programming for 15+ years and have a fairly good idea what
AGP 8x can and cannot do. Thank you. <- Does that make any difference to
anything? No. Why then it is important to mention? I don't know, you tell
me.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 12:17:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
news:ck96es$t3b$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>> Small correction: The AGP 'speed' does not make any significant difference
>> performance-wise. Advanced Graphics Port is just a different (newer)
> standard to
>
> Same way as having car with top speed of 300 kph and 150 kph, if you don't
> drive faster than 150 kph, indeed there is no difference. AGP 8x _does_ have
> twice the _bandwidth_ over AGP 4x, it is a different matter if this is used
> by applications. But that is nitpicking so chill out ffs, always, always
> have to mention every minute little tiny dickwick detail otherwise someone
> corrects you.
>
> Alright. Background information: I work for a 3D graphics hardware vendor
> and I have been programming for 15+ years and have a fairly good idea what
> AGP 8x can and cannot do. Thank you. <- Does that make any difference to
> anything? No. Why then it is important to mention? I don't know, you tell
> me.
>
Okay. I'll go into detail. AGP 'speed' only means anything when transferring textures from
main memory. Most cards have enough memory on board for that not to be an issue. AGPX8 is
slow. AGPX4 is slower etc.... You wouldn't want to use this feature of AGP which was only
included to sell video cards to the uninformed.

-
Ad
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 2:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Okay. I'll go into detail. AGP 'speed' only means anything when
transferring textures from
> main memory.

Before we waste any time, you are a programmer, or end user?

> Most cards have enough memory on board for that not to be an issue.

I am curious, how does that change the fact that AGP 8x has twice the
bandwidth over the AGP 4x? That is completely separate issue from the
question if the bandwidth is needed or not.

When GAME application is written, it must work on as wide range of hardware
as possible. This means the application is specificly engineered to work
from lower end to the higher end of the hardware spectrum, this fact must
have given you the impression that higher bandwidth is NEVER advantageous or
even usefull. You are plain wrong with this conclusion.

> AGPX8 is slow. AGPX4 is slower etc.... You wouldn't want to use this
feature of AGP which was only
> included to sell video cards to the uninformed.

What feature are you referring to, the higher bandwidth, or DIME? I am
curious again, what practical experience you have on the topic? It would be
interesting to know if I am merely wasting my time or having a good
discussion.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 2:32:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

>> Okay. I'll go into detail. AGP 'speed' only means anything when
> transferring textures from
>> main memory.
>
> Before we waste any time, you are a programmer, or end user?
>

I am an end user with a little programming experience.

>> Most cards have enough memory on board for that not to be an issue.
>
> I am curious, how does that change the fact that AGP 8x has twice the
> bandwidth over the AGP 4x? That is completely separate issue from the
> question if the bandwidth is needed or not.
>
> When GAME application is written, it must work on as wide range of hardware
> as possible. This means the application is specificly engineered to work
> from lower end to the higher end of the hardware spectrum, this fact must
> have given you the impression that higher bandwidth is NEVER advantageous or
> even usefull. You are plain wrong with this conclusion.
>
>> AGPX8 is slow. AGPX4 is slower etc.... You wouldn't want to use this
> feature of AGP which was only
>> included to sell video cards to the uninformed.
>
> What feature are you referring to, the higher bandwidth, or DIME? I am
> curious again, what practical experience you have on the topic? It would be
> interesting to know if I am merely wasting my time or having a good
> discussion.
>

I would like to have a good discussion about this because end users seem to be hung up on
the AGP 'speed' when this generally has very little bearing on the performance of their
graphics card. DIME is hardly ever used by games programmers otherwise cards wouldn't have
so much memory on them. AGPX8 bandwidth is only about 2GB/s whereas the latest cards have
about 30GB/s. Sure, high AGP bandwidth is 'good' but not if graphics card bandwidth is
increasing as well. I really don't understand the point of AGP DMA or DIME unless its to
keep costs down.
And texture loading bandwidth doesn't really matter because most games load up the
graphics card memory with textures before the game or 'level' starts.

-
Ad
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 6:05:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> slow read bandwidth.. virtually useless for *smooth* realtime work. All
> developments in this direction give me erection, but that's just me.

Example of this, don't even have to think of filters or brushes or.. simple
things like layers would be ultra-smooth when done with GPU's -- even better
if can modify the layers directly inside the GPU, even if not, we can still
transfer modified regions to the GPU for layer composition (which can be
very flexible to configure since it can be done with fragment processor!).

Basic image transformations while editing such as scaling, rotation and
panning will be virtually free with GPU aswell. These operations burn a lot
of CPU per pixel when done using traditional methods. This is possible, up
to a degree, even with current BUS protocols.. but full duplex connection
between the host system and the graphics processor can't be bad for giving
more flexibility for the application.

Any bets if the Photoshop 10.0 has "PCI Express required" sticker on the
box? (If Adobe won't do that, someone else will and grab the market, mark my
words..)

Also, more bandwidth and especially fast both write AND read from the GPU
will mean that very, very large pictures will also be feasible with this
kind of system-- you need only to fit the # of pixels you are working with
and a little bit extra for buffering so that transfers can be done in the
background in case the client scrolls, scales or whatnot. The Worst Case
would be when a HUGE image, say, 80K by 80K is fully zoomed out.. obviously
in this kind of situation the software would have to track where the
cursor/brush is at, and keep a 1:1 copy of that region-of-interest so that
any brush ops will be efficient. :) 

Even worse is that if that 80K by 80K image is "select all" 'd and some
filter is run, it will in no hell fit completely in the GPU local memory
(well how would I know, maybe in 2006 we have 120 GB of memory in the
graphics card.. or let's make it 2010 :) 

Still, if we process the image in block of, say, 4096x4096.. and swap the
results back into the system ram the process would be a hell of a lot faster
than doing all with CPU. That's where we want the bandwidth for, among other
things!

Photoshop, Gimp, Paintshop are all neat little programs.. but if the thought
of 100% smooth, realtime image editing with very complex brushes, filters,
fully programmable layering and what not doesn't wet the appetite I don't
know what will! Gamers ofcourse won't be impressed but to hell with them! :) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 10, 2004 6:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

>> slow read bandwidth.. virtually useless for *smooth* realtime work. All
>> developments in this direction give me erection, but that's just me.
>
> Example of this, don't even have to think of filters or brushes or.. simple
> things like layers would be ultra-smooth when done with GPU's -- even better
> if can modify the layers directly inside the GPU, even if not, we can still
> transfer modified regions to the GPU for layer composition (which can be
> very flexible to configure since it can be done with fragment processor!).
>
> Basic image transformations while editing such as scaling, rotation and
> panning will be virtually free with GPU aswell. These operations burn a lot
> of CPU per pixel when done using traditional methods. This is possible, up
> to a degree, even with current BUS protocols.. but full duplex connection
> between the host system and the graphics processor can't be bad for giving
> more flexibility for the application.
>
> Any bets if the Photoshop 10.0 has "PCI Express required" sticker on the
> box? (If Adobe won't do that, someone else will and grab the market, mark my
> words..)
>
> Also, more bandwidth and especially fast both write AND read from the GPU
> will mean that very, very large pictures will also be feasible with this
> kind of system-- you need only to fit the # of pixels you are working with
> and a little bit extra for buffering so that transfers can be done in the
> background in case the client scrolls, scales or whatnot. The Worst Case
> would be when a HUGE image, say, 80K by 80K is fully zoomed out.. obviously
> in this kind of situation the software would have to track where the
> cursor/brush is at, and keep a 1:1 copy of that region-of-interest so that
> any brush ops will be efficient. :) 
>
> Even worse is that if that 80K by 80K image is "select all" 'd and some
> filter is run, it will in no hell fit completely in the GPU local memory
> (well how would I know, maybe in 2006 we have 120 GB of memory in the
> graphics card.. or let's make it 2010 :) 
>
> Still, if we process the image in block of, say, 4096x4096.. and swap the
> results back into the system ram the process would be a hell of a lot faster
> than doing all with CPU. That's where we want the bandwidth for, among other
> things!
>
> Photoshop, Gimp, Paintshop are all neat little programs.. but if the thought
> of 100% smooth, realtime image editing with very complex brushes, filters,
> fully programmable layering and what not doesn't wet the appetite I don't
> know what will! Gamers ofcourse won't be impressed but to hell with them! :) 
>
>

Thanks for that very full and informative piece. I guess the 'small step' argument is very
valid.

-
Ad
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
October 11, 2004 7:14:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> writes:

> > Small correction: The AGP 'speed' does not make any significant difference
> > performance-wise. Advanced Graphics Port is just a different (newer)
> standard to
>
> Same way as having car with top speed of 300 kph and 150 kph, if you don't
> drive faster than 150 kph, indeed there is no difference. AGP 8x _does_ have
> twice the _bandwidth_ over AGP 4x, it is a different matter if this is used
> by applications. But that is nitpicking so chill out ffs, always, always
> have to mention every minute little tiny dickwick detail otherwise someone
> corrects you.

I don't think it's nitpicking. It's an useful bit of information to
know that from a gamer's point of view (asusming most of posters here
are gamers) there is no performance difference between x4 and x8 AGP
card. What is more important perhaps is a compatibility with the
motherboard. So chill out, heh heh. Nobody is saying you were wrong
here.
And I read the other lenghty post - very interesting, thanks for
taking time to write it.

Marcin
!