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

The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?) who
were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If so, who
is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

--
Remove nospam to email

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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:36:46 -0800, "Doug" <pigdos@nospamcharter.net>
wrote:

>The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
>DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
>we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
>quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
>think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
>w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

That is why ATI are now able to bring out cheap cards without any
onboard RAM and can use system memory via PCI-Express.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

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

Doug wrote:
> The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
> DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
> we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
> quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely? I'd
> think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue especially
> w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.

If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?

> On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?) who
> were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If so, who
> is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.

AGP is about 267MB/s total.

AGP8x is 2.1GB/s

PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
there's overhead)

PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s

AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
anything.

PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
and it's a good thing.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

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

Doug wrote:

> The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory speeds
> DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever. I mean
> we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large enough
> quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP completely?
> I'd think system memory contention would be less and less of an issue
> especially w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.
>
> On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
> who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
> so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?

The bandwidth of x16 is, the bandwidth of x1 is not, I forget where the
crossover is.

And it's Intel that's pushing it--I don't think that Microsoft really gives
a damn one way or another--it doesn't affect them unless Intel screws up
the hardware design in such a manner that they have to put workarounds in
the OS to fix it.

One day Intel just up and announced "we've got this hot new bus and all of
our new chipsets are going to have it and not AGP and the rest of you
better support it" and the rest of the industry just rolled over for them.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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

Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything is
going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace AGP?
Right?

--
Remove nospam to email
"Ben Pope" <ben_popeREMOVE_ME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110660577.ed291d6c76db15a3653f185db005fd9f@teranews...
> Doug wrote:
>
> If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?
>
>
> PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.
>
> AGP is about 267MB/s total.
>
> AGP8x is 2.1GB/s
>
> PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but there's
> overhead)
>
> PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s
>
> AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
> bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
> anything.
>
> PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
> Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
> and it's a good thing.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

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

Ben Pope wrote:

> Doug wrote:
>> The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory
>> speeds DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever.
>> I mean we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large
>> enough quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP
>> completely? I'd think system memory contention would be less and less of
>> an issue especially w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.
>
> If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?

PCI Express.

>> On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
>> who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
>> so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?
>
> PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.
>
> AGP is about 267MB/s total.
>
> AGP8x is 2.1GB/s
>
> PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
> there's overhead)
>
> PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s

Uh, if PCIe is 2.5 Gb/sec then PCIe 16x is 16 times that. It scales
linearly from 1x to 16x. I think you've left something out.

> AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
> bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
> anything.
>
> PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
> Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
> and it's a good thing.

Why is it a good thing? Just because everybody says "rah rah it's a good
thing"? Look where that got Martha Stewart.

Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.
>
> Ben

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:16:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
>decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.

Just like 5 years ago there was a "fad for pentium mmx" computers.
Now, 5 years down the line, we look back at them and laugh with our
pentium 4s with HT.

Everything gets upgraded. They are all fads. I think its a good move
to switch over to PCIe. And by the end of this year, hopefully, some
gfx cards will come out which utilize more of the bandwidth of PCIe.

Anyway, all of these new cards coming out are native PCIe. So it
doesn't make sense to go in for AGP now.


***
....the Phoenix shall rise...

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

Doug wrote:
> Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
> previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything is
> going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace AGP?
> Right?

No, not everything is going serial, that was perhaps an overstatement.
But then, we are talking about raw data rates of 6.4GBytes per second
for memory, and thats not overclocked. It's been shown that certain
boards with certain memory are pushing >50% on top of that - nearly
10GBytes/s.

PCIe will replace AGP, yes.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

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

J. Clarke wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>>The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory
>>>speeds DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than ever.
>>>I mean we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large
>>>enough quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP
>>>completely? I'd think system memory contention would be less and less of
>>>an issue especially w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.
>>
>>If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?
>
>
> PCI Express.

Well, yes, presumably, but the post was written as if the card would be
hard-wired to system RAM or something. I was after the OPs expectations.

>>>On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
>>>who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
>>>so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?
>>
>>PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.
>>
>>AGP is about 267MB/s total.
>>
>>AGP8x is 2.1GB/s
>>
>>PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
>>there's overhead)
>>
>>PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s
>
>
> Uh, if PCIe is 2.5 Gb/sec then PCIe 16x is 16 times that. It scales
> linearly from 1x to 16x. I think you've left something out.

2.5G BITS *16 lanes / 8 bits is ~4G Bytes. OK, so the maths says it's
5GB, but like I said, there's overhead - so in terms of usuable data
rates it's more like 4GB/s.

>>AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
>>bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
>>anything.
>>
>>PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
>>Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
>>and it's a good thing.
>
>
> Why is it a good thing? Just because everybody says "rah rah it's a good
> thing"? Look where that got Martha Stewart.
>
> Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
> decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.

It's a good thing because it means that cabling and connectors are more
manageable - I kinda like SATA connectors over ATA ones, and USB
connectors over 9pin D-Type.

Routing of tracks on boards is easier and takes up less space.

Signal levels can be reduced with a balanced line (differential pair) as
the effect of interference is reduced. This means less power requirements.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

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

Doug wrote:

> Since the Athlon FX is now using a 128-bit data bus (as opposed to the
> previous 64-bit data bus or Pentium-based CPU's) obviously not everything
> is going serial. I thought PCI Express was supposed to completely replace
> AGP? Right?

It is, but not because it is needed for that purpose, only because Intel has
decreed it so.
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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

I like the SATA cable/connector size but the connectors are a disaster. ATA
stays put. Each time I work in my case I inadvertently dislodge a SATA
connector. The cable is much too stiff for easy routing . I think the use
of silicone would improve that.
--
Tally Ho!
Ed
"Ben Pope" <ben_popeREMOVE_ME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110669484.19f8362a7ca67735e6fe0d478bddacf2@teranews...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Ben Pope wrote:
>>
>>>Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>>The funny thing is I would guess that with the faster system memory
>>>>speeds DIME (or is it AGP texture memory) would be more viable than
>>>>ever.
>>>>I mean we're finally getting system memory fast enough (and in large
>>>>enough quantities) to keep up w/AGP speeds and they get rid of AGP
>>>>completely? I'd think system memory contention would be less and less of
>>>>an issue especially w/the new 128-bit data bus of the Athlon 64/FX.
>>>
>>>If you get rid of AGP, what are you going to plug your card into?
>>
>>
>> PCI Express.
>
> Well, yes, presumably, but the post was written as if the card would be
> hard-wired to system RAM or something. I was after the OPs expectations.
>
>>>>On another note I seem to remember some people here (was it John Clark?)
>>>>who were saying the bandwidth of PCI Express is NOT faster than AGP? If
>>>>so, who is pushing for the obsolesence of AGP? Intel? Microshaft?
>>>
>>>PCi is about 133MBytes/s total.
>>>
>>>AGP is about 267MB/s total.
>>>
>>>AGP8x is 2.1GB/s
>>>
>>>PCIe is 2.5 Gbits/s in each direction, thats 320MB/s each way (but
>>>there's overhead)
>>>
>>>PCIe 16x is about 4GBytes/s
>>
>>
>> Uh, if PCIe is 2.5 Gb/sec then PCIe 16x is 16 times that. It scales
>> linearly from 1x to 16x. I think you've left something out.
>
> 2.5G BITS *16 lanes / 8 bits is ~4G Bytes. OK, so the maths says it's
> 5GB, but like I said, there's overhead - so in terms of usuable data rates
> it's more like 4GB/s.
>
>>>AGP8x is not fully utilised by graphics cards, so you don't need more
>>>bandwidth just yet, and introducing more bandwidth doesn't gain you
>>>anything.
>>>
>>>PCIe is a natural progression. It's a serial bus, much like USB,
>>>Firewire, Hypertransport, SATA... Everything is shifting over to serial
>>>and it's a good thing.
>>
>>
>> Why is it a good thing? Just because everybody says "rah rah it's a good
>> thing"? Look where that got Martha Stewart.
>>
>> Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
>> decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.
>
> It's a good thing because it means that cabling and connectors are more
> manageable - I kinda like SATA connectors over ATA ones, and USB
> connectors over 9pin D-Type.
>
> Routing of tracks on boards is easier and takes up less space.
>
> Signal levels can be reduced with a balanced line (differential pair) as
> the effect of interference is reduced. This means less power
> requirements.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

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

Phoenix AG wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:16:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
>>decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.
>
> Just like 5 years ago there was a "fad for pentium mmx" computers.
> Now, 5 years down the line, we look back at them and laugh with our
> pentium 4s with HT.

Not equivalent. Pentium MMX is one stage in the evolution of
microprocessors. The serial bus is a general class of technology that has
many different incarnations.

> Everything gets upgraded. They are all fads.

Somehow I don't think that the integrated circuit microprocessor is a "fad".

> I think its a good move
> to switch over to PCIe. And by the end of this year, hopefully, some
> gfx cards will come out which utilize more of the bandwidth of PCIe.

Why would one want them to? They still have vastly more bandwidth to their
onboard memory.

> Anyway, all of these new cards coming out are native PCIe. So it
> doesn't make sense to go in for AGP now.

They're also for the most part available with AGP and with the same
performance. The reason to go PCI Express is not that video boards are not
available, it's that you can't buy a motherboard with a current-generation
Intel chipset on it that has anything else.

> ***
> ...the Phoenix shall rise...

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

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

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:12:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>Phoenix AG wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:16:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Right now there seems to be a fad for serial buses. In another couple of
>>>decades they're going to be looking back on it and laughing.
>>
>> Just like 5 years ago there was a "fad for pentium mmx" computers.
>> Now, 5 years down the line, we look back at them and laugh with our
>> pentium 4s with HT.
>
>Not equivalent. Pentium MMX is one stage in the evolution of
>microprocessors. The serial bus is a general class of technology that has
>many different incarnations.

Well...let me put it this way...
PCIe is one stage in the evolution of Graphics card buses. I am sure
when AGP was introduced, which was an upgrade over PCI based graphics
cards, people like you said that its all a fad and who needs the extra
power anyway?

If we kept thinking like that...then we would seriously be very
technologically incompetent. Ok, there isn't a need for it today, but
when the new graphics cards come out, maybe they will need even more
than what AGP8x currently offers. Maybe they will need the speed of
PCIe.

>> Everything gets upgraded. They are all fads.
>
>Somehow I don't think that the integrated circuit microprocessor is a "fad".

Same as AGP isn't a fad. I hate the term fad and I wish you hadn't
used it in your original post
PCIe is a natural progression.

>> I think its a good move
>> to switch over to PCIe. And by the end of this year, hopefully, some
>> gfx cards will come out which utilize more of the bandwidth of PCIe.
>
>Why would one want them to? They still have vastly more bandwidth to their
>onboard memory.

Would you not like to experience games in even better graphics? Maybe
even graphics that make you feel like you are experiencing it like
it's real? You expect that on AGP? I don't think so.
I probably won't even expect it on PCIe, but at least its a step
further than AGP. Always, one step forward, not backwards.

>
>> Anyway, all of these new cards coming out are native PCIe. So it
>> doesn't make sense to go in for AGP now.
>
>They're also for the most part available with AGP and with the same
>performance. The reason to go PCI Express is not that video boards are not
>available, it's that you can't buy a motherboard with a current-generation
>Intel chipset on it that has anything else.

Yes, but still, they are made for PCIe buses. You can still find
motherboards with an AGP slot. In fact, I had trouble finding an AMD
motherboard with a PCIe slot. Thats why I took Intel then. Why buy
technology which is already obsolete?

You can fight it, but AGP is going to be made obsolete by PCIe. Maybe
it is Intel's evil agenda but the fact is, it does provide better
bandwidth.

In computing, it's never "why do I need?", always "because I can".
Intel could do it thats why they did