AGP Aperture size????

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

NBK wrote:
> HI
>
> I just upgraded my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to a Leadtek 6800 GT. Do i leave
> the AGP Aperture size at 64 or do i raise it?
>
> Thanks
> NBK

I've seen benchmarks that show a 128MB apature to be most optimal on
64-256MB cards. Higher settings (some boards support up to a 512MB
apature) seemed to slow things down more than anything else.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Um, not true. You can't make blanket generalizations about AGP aperture
size. Someone on Rage3d did testing with various AGP aperture sizes and
discovered for some games 256 is the best setting. I discovered the same
thing with two games: Battlefield 1942 and
BloodRayne (the original). Certain levels/maps lagged to the point of being
unplayable, when I raised the aperture size to 256 this problem vanished.
BF2 supposedly exhibits the same problems.

--
there is no .sig
"deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ikhze.4576$xE5.1636@fe07.lga...
> NBK wrote:
>> HI
>>
>> I just upgraded my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to a Leadtek 6800 GT. Do i leave
>> the AGP Aperture size at 64 or do i raise it?
>>
>> Thanks
>> NBK
>
> I've seen benchmarks that show a 128MB apature to be most optimal on
> 64-256MB cards. Higher settings (some boards support up to a 512MB
> apature) seemed to slow things down more than anything else.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Doug wrote:
> Um, not true. You can't make blanket generalizations about AGP aperture
> size. Someone on Rage3d did testing with various AGP aperture sizes and
> discovered for some games 256 is the best setting. I discovered the same
> thing with two games: Battlefield 1942 and
> BloodRayne (the original). Certain levels/maps lagged to the point of being
> unplayable, when I raised the aperture size to 256 this problem vanished.
> BF2 supposedly exhibits the same problems.
>

I'll have to look up the article, but I think it was on Tom's Hardware.
He went through several cards running 3dmark2k1 and other games with
varying AGP apatures. In the end, the highest apature available (256)
tended to flood a "GART" table on the card and affect rasterization
speed (fillrate). So it had a negative impact.

Additionally, AGP apature is only supposed to really affect AGP
texturing (tex from system RAM uploaded on the fly to video card when
you run out of VRAM), it's one way only, and wouldn't change your bus
bandwidth by itself.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The AGP aperture size doesn't really have anything to do with physical
memory; it is just the size in memory space that physical memory can be
remapped into.

Phil Weldon

"deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...
> Doug wrote:
>> Um, not true. You can't make blanket generalizations about AGP aperture
>> size. Someone on Rage3d did testing with various AGP aperture sizes and
>> discovered for some games 256 is the best setting. I discovered the same
>> thing with two games: Battlefield 1942 and
>> BloodRayne (the original). Certain levels/maps lagged to the point of
>> being unplayable, when I raised the aperture size to 256 this problem
>> vanished. BF2 supposedly exhibits the same problems.
>>
>
> I'll have to look up the article, but I think it was on Tom's Hardware. He
> went through several cards running 3dmark2k1 and other games with varying
> AGP apatures. In the end, the highest apature available (256) tended to
> flood a "GART" table on the card and affect rasterization speed
> (fillrate). So it had a negative impact.
>
> Additionally, AGP apature is only supposed to really affect AGP texturing
> (tex from system RAM uploaded on the fly to video card when you run out of
> VRAM), it's one way only, and wouldn't change your bus bandwidth by
> itself.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Doesn't have "anything to do with physical memory"? Huh? It specifies the
maximum amount of physical memory that can be used by the graphics card as
texture space. Duh.

--
there is no .sig
"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
news:YjKze.7017$aY6.2616@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The AGP aperture size doesn't really have anything to do with physical
> memory; it is just the size in memory space that physical memory can be
> remapped into.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Um, not true. You can't make blanket generalizations about AGP aperture
>>> size. Someone on Rage3d did testing with various AGP aperture sizes and
>>> discovered for some games 256 is the best setting. I discovered the same
>>> thing with two games: Battlefield 1942 and
>>> BloodRayne (the original). Certain levels/maps lagged to the point of
>>> being unplayable, when I raised the aperture size to 256 this problem
>>> vanished. BF2 supposedly exhibits the same problems.
>>>
>>
>> I'll have to look up the article, but I think it was on Tom's Hardware.
>> He went through several cards running 3dmark2k1 and other games with
>> varying AGP apatures. In the end, the highest apature available (256)
>> tended to flood a "GART" table on the card and affect rasterization speed
>> (fillrate). So it had a negative impact.
>>
>> Additionally, AGP apature is only supposed to really affect AGP texturing
>> (tex from system RAM uploaded on the fly to video card when you run out
>> of VRAM), it's one way only, and wouldn't change your bus bandwidth by
>> itself.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The Rage3d person performed rigorous testing of various different games and
found that there is no best size. Different games require differing amounts
and Battlefield 2 recommends increasing the AGP aperture size.

--
there is no .sig
"deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...
> Doug wrote:
>
> I'll have to look up the article, but I think it was on Tom's Hardware. He
> went through several cards running 3dmark2k1 and other games with varying
> AGP apatures. In the end, the highest apature available (256) tended to
> flood a "GART" table on the card and affect rasterization speed
> (fillrate). So it had a negative impact.
>
> Additionally, AGP apature is only supposed to really affect AGP texturing
> (tex from system RAM uploaded on the fly to video card when you run out of
> VRAM), it's one way only, and wouldn't change your bus bandwidth by
> itself.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EY5Ae.72$_%4.69@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Doesn't have "anything to do with physical memory"? Huh? It specifies the
> maximum amount of physical memory that can be used by the graphics card as
> texture space. Duh.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
> "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
> news:YjKze.7017$aY6.2616@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> The AGP aperture size doesn't really have anything to do with physical
>> memory; it is just the size in memory space that physical memory can be
>> remapped into.
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
>> "deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...

That IS what he said already... Duh!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

You're right, I misread his post. He's right though, strictly speaking, it
has nothing to do with physical memory but rather the allocation of it.

--
there is no .sig
"Rubbie" <bjojk@nospam.dekrijger.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:11d27p2ghvvcj5f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:EY5Ae.72$_%4.69@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> Doesn't have "anything to do with physical memory"? Huh? It specifies the
>> maximum amount of physical memory that can be used by the graphics card
>> as texture space. Duh.
>>
>> --
>> there is no .sig
>> "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:YjKze.7017$aY6.2616@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> The AGP aperture size doesn't really have anything to do with physical
>>> memory; it is just the size in memory space that physical memory can be
>>> remapped into.
>>>
>>> Phil Weldon
>>>
>>> "deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...
>
> That IS what he said already... Duh!
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

There is absolutely no consensus or magic answer to this dispute. I
recently read that reducing the AGP aperture to 64 when you have more memory
(256) on your video card reduces stuttering in BF2. In other words, you
need a larger AGP aperture if you have 128 or 64 on your video card but less
is needed if you have 256. (this makes more sense to me than tying the AGP
figure to main board memory) I tried it and saw no difference at all on BF2,
UT2004 or Need For Speed Underground. (I have 2x512 of main memory).

"Doug" <pigdos@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SZ5Ae.74$_%4.0@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The Rage3d person performed rigorous testing of various different games
> and found that there is no best size. Different games require differing
> amounts and Battlefield 2 recommends increasing the AGP aperture size.
>
> --
> there is no .sig
> "deimos" <duralisisNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0arze.1440$yL4.884@fe02.lga...
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>> I'll have to look up the article, but I think it was on Tom's Hardware.
>> He went through several cards running 3dmark2k1 and other games with
>> varying AGP apatures. In the end, the highest apature available (256)
>> tended to flood a "GART" table on the card and affect rasterization speed
>> (fillrate). So it had a negative impact.
>>
>> Additionally, AGP apature is only supposed to really affect AGP texturing
>> (tex from system RAM uploaded on the fly to video card when you run out
>> of VRAM), it's one way only, and wouldn't change your bus bandwidth by
>> itself.
>
>