Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

PCI-X video cards?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 21, 2006 6:33:23 PM

Does anyone know of any? And I'm not talking PCI-express that gets confused with PCI-X.

I have an intel server that used the interface with no PCI-e support or agp. Just wanted to see whats out there.
Thanks!
Cheers.

More about : pci video cards

June 21, 2006 6:40:41 PM

I hear matrox used to make one, I'd imagine Ati and Nvidia probably had something out as well, but good luck finding anything.

You're probably better off with a plain PCI graphics card, at least you can find those...
June 21, 2006 7:04:18 PM

Tom's did a review on a couple PCI-X cards back on Nov 23, 2005. The cards were Highpoint RocketRaid models 2220 and 2230. Hope that helps
Related resources
June 21, 2006 7:05:47 PM

I assume you are joking.
a b U Graphics card
June 21, 2006 7:27:18 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know of any? And I'm not talking PCI-express that gets confused with PCI-X.


Like Cleeve mentioned, Matrox;
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/workstation/cre_pro/prod...

And ATi has a FireMV version (even rarer and more expensive).

IMO, you're better off with a GF6200 PCI card, and for gaming forget it. So if it's basic basic displaying then just get the cheapest Radeon or Geforce PCI card you can find.
June 21, 2006 7:47:47 PM

Quote:
I assume you are joking.


Saddly no.
June 21, 2006 7:52:54 PM

I was replying to Sailer who referenced raid controllers.
June 21, 2006 7:57:40 PM

Joking about what? The article is there, along with the cards that I referenced. Perhaps I didn't properly understand what PCcashcow's question, but the subject title was seemed to ask what PCI-X cards were available, so I referenced that. I wasn't trying to be all inclusive, just giving a place to start.
June 21, 2006 7:57:43 PM

Got ya, I didn't notice what he was talking about.
June 21, 2006 8:01:37 PM

Quote:
Got ya, I didn't notice what he was talking about.


And so I blew it. Misunderstood what was being asked. Happens sometimes. sorry about that.
June 21, 2006 8:01:52 PM

He mentioned PCIe and AGP. The man is looking for a videocard, at least that's what I got from his query... :) 
a b U Graphics card
June 21, 2006 8:12:36 PM

Quote:
He mentioned PCIe and AGP. The man is looking for a videocard, at least that's what I got from his query... :) 


You see I just used the title to help guide me, but then again I do things a little differently than most. :mrgreen:
June 27, 2006 2:23:59 PM

I have the same situation with an ASUS twin Xeon server with an embedded 8MB video card. The one PCI slot is being used for the sound card, and I want to find a PCI-X (Not PCI-E) video card. The problem is that PCI-X has a different slot configuration plus it is set back further than the regular slots.


Matrox has told me that they have two cards that will fit, plus they have a 30 day no-hassle return policy.


This is from Tech Support @Matrox

<<<Depending on what your price range would be we have 2 solutions.

We have the Millennium, P650 PCI that is able to operate at up to 66MHz in a PCI-X slot.
It will support 2 monitors, DVI, CRT, or both.
Or, it will support 1 monitor and 1 NTSC/PAL TV.
The Millennium P650 PCI is more of an entry level product. It's equipped with 64MB of RAM.

The other solution is the Parhelia PCI 256. A much higher end product.
It will support 3 monitors. 3 CRTs, or 1 DVI and 2 CRTs.
It will also support 2 monitors, DVI, CRT, or both.
Or, it will support 2 monitors and 1 NTSC/PAL TV.
The Parhelia PCI 256 can operate at 64bit/66MHz.
It's equipped with 256MB of RAM.

Millennium P650 Low Profile PCI, Part number P65-MDDAP64
Parhelia PCI 256MB, Part Number: PH-P256

For both cards, the TV Out cable is sold separately.

>>>>>>

I have not had a chance to try either card yet. Has anybody had luck with either of these in a PCI-X slot?
June 27, 2006 3:46:30 PM

I don't know if this is true or not, but perhaps a regular PCI card will fit in the X slot? I know many PCI-X cards will work in a PCI slot, so maybe it works the other way too?
a b U Graphics card
June 27, 2006 4:39:09 PM

Quote:
Does anyone know of any? And I'm not talking PCI-express that gets confused with PCI-X.

I have an intel server that used the interface with no PCI-e support or agp. Just wanted to see whats out there.
Thanks!
Cheers.


Good luck finding one, let alone being able to purchase it...Matrox makes the Parhelia DL256 PCI-X video card but haven't seen it available for purchase anywhere...also, keep in mind, that if you do find and purchase a PCI-X video card, it's not going to be a gaming card, anything like that would be geared more towards a server or CAD workstation...

You can purchase a PCI video card and use it the PCI-X slot...

IMO, you'd be better off swapping out that mobo for one that supports PCI-X as well as PCI-e, maybe even SLI...something like the SUPERMICRO X6DAT-G and future proof yourself...

It all depends on what your using the machine for...gaming, workstations, websurfing...that would determine which way to go...

Good luck!
June 27, 2006 5:56:43 PM

Quote:
IMO, you'd be better off swapping out that mobo for one that supports PCI-X as well as PCI-e, maybe even SLI...something like the SUPERMICRO X6DAT-G and future proof yourself...
It was a cheap solution to getting all pony's out of my pci-x133 raid card for my san and internal raid setup.

Yeah, I wont do any gamming, but I thought it'd be worth searching around for one. The bandwidth availible on that bus is way higher than pci'e for parrallel processing. I kind of wonder why no one has taken advantage of it.

But thanks all for your help.
June 27, 2006 6:24:46 PM

Paralel processing?

Your videocard doesn't do anything except process screen output and 3d data for games. If you're not gaming or using CAD, the PCI-X interface will provide no benefit. use a PCI card for cheep.
June 27, 2006 6:58:50 PM

Quote:
IMO, you'd be better off swapping out that mobo for one that supports PCI-X as well as PCI-e, maybe even SLI...something like the SUPERMICRO X6DAT-G and future proof yourself...
It was a cheap solution to getting all pony's out of my pci-x133 raid card for my san and internal raid setup.

Yeah, I wont do any gamming, but I thought it'd be worth searching around for one. The bandwidth availible on that bus is way higher than pci'e for parrallel processing. I kind of wonder why no one has taken advantage of it.

But thanks all for your help. No one takes advantage because only servers and workstations have it and someone have the AGP idea. PCI-X is usefull in video editing with coprocesors etc and Matrox is got at that. In servers is usefull in lan an RAID like PCIe x4 will be in a near future.
June 27, 2006 7:34:24 PM

Quote:
I don't know if this is true or not, but perhaps a regular PCI card will fit in the X slot? I know many PCI-X cards will work in a PCI slot, so maybe it works the other way too?


Yes, that's possible, it will drop the PCI-X bus and all devices on that buss to 33MHz (unless the PCI card supports 66MHz). I am currently running a PCI sound card (Audigy2 ZS) in a PCI-X 100 slot due to lack of 32/33 PCI slots.
June 27, 2006 7:37:19 PM

Quote:
Paralel processing?

Your videocard doesn't do anything except process screen output and 3d data for games. If you're not gaming or using CAD, the PCI-X interface will provide no benefit. use a PCI card for cheep.


It is possible to use a video card as a targeted high-performance, high throughput processor
Edit:here's a link.
June 27, 2006 7:57:15 PM

Yes, but is that what this fellow plans to use it for?
June 27, 2006 8:03:03 PM

Dunno, but just showing that it is possible to do some serious number crunching on video cards that isn't related to rendering graphics.
June 29, 2006 4:03:13 PM

I feel for you. I just got an old Tyan S2518, and all it has for slots is two PCI-X 64 bit 66MHZ slots. There are both different, one is 3.3V, the other is 5V and they are keyed differently. So I am also looking for a video card to take advantage of one of the PCI-X slots, but I must be careful that the RAID card I use is the other variety. Lots of idiots on eBay use the PCI-X as a substitute for PCI express, and they are nowhere close.

What slot(s) do you have? Mine are short-long-medium (3.3 I think)and long-short-medium (Would be the 5V then).
April 21, 2010 3:17:43 PM

Resurrecting this thread...

I think that vid chip makers really missed the boat on not supporting PCI-X, and I'll tell you why.

The video card industry has supported legacy PCI, which I appreciate, but IMO it's a bit ridiculous to see a GeForce 9500 GT with 1 GB of RAM with a legacy PCI interface.

Many of the buyers of legacy PCI cards are using old server boards, like I am. These comps were the most powerful thing going in their day, e.g. dual 3 GHz Xeons, so are still adequate for many uses today, even for a server 7 or 8 years old. These can be built very cheaply now from eBay. Their one down side which can't be overcome is the lack of a decent video option. USB 2 you can add, GigaNIC you can add, SATA you can add. The architecture of many of these boards included multiple PCI buses, so with judicious choices of what peripheral goes in what slot everything could be made to work very well together, very fast. Unfortunately, most PCs only have one PCI bus to work with which usually shares with NIC or sound card, or both - but I know a large number of legacy PCI vid card buyers are using old servers, who would benefit a lot from a PCI-X vid card, judging by such things as PCI vid card reviews on vender sites.

PCI-X is backwards compatible with PCI - the unused pins will simply not be used, and the card need be no longer than a ordinary 32 bit PCI vid card, so there is really no need that two different cards be made for PCI and PCI-X, as long as they follow the universal spec.

But let's look at the numbers. Going by memory, PCI 32 bit has a data rate of 133 MB/s, PCI-X @ 133 MHz has about 1 GB/s. AGP had a max data rate of about 3 GB/s, and PCI-e x16 has a data rate of 4 GB/s (please correct me if I'm wrong, though the numbers are just for rough comparison).

So, yes, PCI-X doesn't really compare with PCI-e or even AGP - but it is still 7 and 1/2 times faster than regular PCI! Given the performance I have seen with just a regular PCI vid card (on it's own bus with no other competing peripherals) this would give a HUGE performance boost - enough to make the bus quite usable for most games, or for flawless Aero performance, which is a huge plus.

I think if one of the vid chip manufacturers wised up and sold a Vista compatible chip with PCI-X support, he would sell a TON of them - but I also doubt if we'll ever see it, unfortunately - the market mentality for regular 32 bit legacy PCI seems just too entrenched, which is just sad - sad for the chip manufacturers, and sad for all the potential customers.
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2010 4:02:30 PM

PCI-X never went mainstream for graphics. Nobody thought a server would need more than a IGP display driver. PCI-X was an implementation for high speed NIC cards and raid controllers.

The days of PCI-X, PCI, and AGP is long over. They hardly make boards with PCI slots now. My motherboard has only PCI-E slots.

New sound cards and NIC like the ones I have are all PCI-E x1 which gives more than ample bandwidth. PCI-E 2.0 runs at 8GB/s max which is blazing fast.


I think they stopped production of PCI or AGP graphics cards a few years back. You can still find some on the market but thats about it.
a b U Graphics card
April 21, 2010 4:08:41 PM

Theoretically you're right, practically speaking no point.

The market is minimal, the bridge chip required for signalling would outweigh the profits of such a niche market (ancient PCs without an AGP Pro or PCIe 1X slot.

New workstation boards all have at least a PCIe 1X slot which is more than enough for graphics, and PCI-X is impractical for GPGPU when using a bridge chip because you would loose alot of performance on a chip that had difficulty running @ 4X speeds back in the day.

And your 1GB/s number is off, that's for double word (64) 533 PCI-X, not 32/133, which is about 1/4 of that or equivalent to about AGP 1X, but in practical purposes a bit slower due to shared traffic.

Regular PCI support the legacy products for people who need consistency over performance, PCI-X makes no sense except for a couple of dozen people on the planet.
April 21, 2010 4:32:02 PM

All good points guys - except that there is a small persistent market for legacy PCI that shows no sign of going away. Many manufacturers still make legacy PCI vid cards with the newer chips - and the chip manufacturers still design the lower end chips with legacy PCI support for that reason.

The 64 bit 533MHz PCI-X gives 4.3 GB/s, as per this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-X#Versions

I did not give that or the 266 MHz number because that spec was never widely implemented.

As to 'a couple of dozen people on the planet', I think the hits on this old dead thread would mean something to somebody - I couldn't have hit it all those times myself...
a b U Graphics card
April 22, 2010 3:08:09 AM

Kiauma said:
All good points guys - except that there is a small persistent market for legacy PCI that shows no sign of going away.


And they are all served just fine by PCI cards. No need for PCI-X.
PCI-X market is a fractional market of another fractional market.

It doesn't really matter because PCI-X is no longer even a market that makes sense for workstations, PCIe has taken over on server boards too, so there's no point in the IHVs wasting money on that, and they only make PCI models when they have extra die space to knock off another model for the multi-monitor crowd who are more in need of PCI card than the cheap gamer trying to get an eMachine or 5+ year old PC to run their fully paid for copy of Vista or Crysis. :sarcastic: 

They would only manage to sell a ton of them if they charged $10 each, and even then half of that market would wait 6-12 months for 'a price drop'. Yeah huge motivation for the IHVs to get right on that. :lol: 

Quote:
As to 'a couple of dozen people on the planet', I think the hits on this old dead thread would mean something to somebody - I couldn't have hit it all those times myself...


Or so you say.

You and the coupla dozen other Luddites probably hit F5 over and over because it's the only way to make it seem relevant.

April 22, 2010 12:52:26 PM

So you agree that the oddly high post count on an otherwise seemingly irrelevant topic does add weight to my point. :) 

I figured it probably got that high the same way I found it, through people doing an internet search on 'PCI-X video cards'.

But, ah well, I suppose it is of no concern since it seems I have unwittingly struck up a conversation with a graphics marketing guru who apparently knows all about it.

Never mind me - please do carry on. Don't bother to do the simple math of upgrading versus buying a whole new computer. That has certainly never occurred to me, nor anyone else I'm sure...
a b U Graphics card
April 23, 2010 12:19:33 AM

Kiauma said:
So you agree that the oddly high post count on an otherwise seemingly irrelevant topic does add weight to my point. :) 


No, it doesn't add any weight to it, because the value of those inquiries over 4 years are about equal to the price people are willing to pay, VERY LITTLE. Multiplying X by a large number doesn't give a large result if the value of X approaches Zero.

Quote:
But, ah well, I suppose it is of no concern since it seems I have unwittingly struck up a conversation with a graphics marketing guru who apparently knows all about it.


Guess so, especially since the market and IHVs reflect my sentiment and not yours. Interesting how the one company that provides a PCI-X graphics card (which I have had to purchase for work in the past) is the LOWEST marketshare company out there, and even they don't sell many of those PCI-X boards. Guess that tells you what your theory of 'selling TONs' does to their demand. :mouais: 

Quote:
Never mind me - please do carry on. Don't bother to do the simple math of upgrading versus buying a whole new computer. [ That has certainly never occurred to me, nor anyone else I'm sure...


Yeah it's occurred to us, too many times before (or did it not occur to you that you weren't the first :heink:  ), and after extensive discussions on the topic, the minute you add the word GAMES the discussion is over, there's no point, and it's a waste of money for all involved. Only the luddites who think adding an HD5870 on a PCI or AGP card would make a P3-900 / XP2000 into a gaming rig think they have something profound to add that the people who make money doing this are missing out on. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]
April 23, 2010 3:15:59 AM

Wow - and you're a moderator here?

?

TGGA, no doubt you know vastly more about gaming, the gaming community, and gaming graphics than I do. No doubt at all - but what I am sensing here is that you seem to be under the impression that gaming is the entire PC universe.

I did mention above that a better legacy PCI video card would make an older PC usable for some games - but I also explicitly stated that it would never equate to cutting edge gaming systems. Yes, it is a niche market - a niche market which both Nvidia and ATI support, so potentially might be interested in improving.

My point has never been to compete with new systems, but rather how to keep older systems - and there are a LOT of older systems out there that this would apply to - whose main operational drawback is simply the lack of a video option that can run the newer applications and even operating systems, to remain useful for many more years for web browsing, email, or even for multimedia use, simply with the addition of the right video card. My point was that this would be a very attractive option, as opposed to junking the system and starting over, to many potential buyers.

Gaming, and the constant pursuit of the latest hottest gaming hardware, is NOT the entire PC universe. I might start to feel bad if this was even a gaming forum - but it's not. This subforum is dedicated to graphics cards, but even that hardly specifies Gaming cards, so I'm reasonably certain I have put an appropriate suggestion in the appropriate place - so why you should come off all arrogant and disdainful of what I am trying to suggest here is beyond me.

Perhaps you just feel that way about anybody that doesn't share you passion for gaming, which is fine, other than the fact that somebody seems to have had the bad judgment of putting somebody with your attitude and lack of decorum ( you know, a 'luddite') in some position of authority here.

But thanks for your helpfulness and concern. <-- (Yes, that's more sarcasm, which am pointing out here so that it doesn't fly over your head like it apparently did in my last post.)
a b U Graphics card
April 23, 2010 4:29:48 AM

Kiauma said:
Wow - and you're a moderator here?


And that has what to do with what?
Other than I didn't smack you right away for Necro-posting! :hello: 

Quote:
No doubt at all - but what I am sensing here is that you seem to be under the impression that gaming is the entire PC universe.


I'm sensing you don't actually understand the difference between your desire for some wishful unattainable item and the crux of the issue: if there was money to be made it would be made, if it's not being done, that's because it's not worth it. Thought you'd understand the Matrox reference, but obviously that went over your head.

Quote:
I did mention above that a better legacy PCI video card would make an older PC usable for some games - but I also explicitly stated that it would never equate to cutting edge gaming systems.


It's not even adequate to compete with an Xbox, let alone entry level, mid-range and is so far from cutting-edge the light from a cutting-edge system takes 2 days to reach your solution. :sol: 

Quote:
Yes, it is a niche market - a niche market which both Nvidia and ATI support, so potentially might be interested in improving.


Niche markets they support at subsistence level for the niche markets like multi-monitors and people who put $100 PCI card in their 4 year old eMachine thinking that GF8600GS will game above a GF8400 PCIe model that would dominate it.

Quote:
My point has never been to compete with new systems, but rather how to keep older systems - and there are a LOT of older systems out there that this would apply to - whose main operational drawback is simply the lack of a video option


That's not it either, the majority who would 'only' have a PCI slot and whose integrated graphics isn't at least an X300 or GMA 950 level would have far more problems than just the video, but they would be convinced that the graphics would solve it and give them a 'capable system'. Instead of simply spending the proper money for the proper upgrade. It is time to junk the thing and start over.

Quote:
Gaming, and the constant pursuit of the latest hottest gaming hardware, is NOT the entire PC universe.


No one said it was, you brought it into the equation, I didn't even consider it in my initial reply, you included it in your first post. For the workstation market it's pointless to have more than the existing PCI cards, for the add-in market it's pointless to have more, and for the multi-monitor market it's pointless to have more. For all those reasons, you're wrong. You think I was focusing on games, but I'm not, I'm focusing on economics and my understanding of the industry and buying this on a large scale professional level for 4 years dealing directly with companies like Matrox in particular to try and get them to commit to a Vista Aero capable card so we could continue with using them on enterprise PCs because we preferred their multi-monitor support at the time.

Quote:
I might start to feel bad if this was even a gaming forum - but it's not. This subforum is dedicated to graphics cards, but even that hardly specifies Gaming cards, so I'm reasonably certain I have put an appropriate suggestion in the appropriate place - so why you should come off all arrogant and disdainful of what I am trying to suggest here is beyond me.


Simple, you necro-post wishing for a gilded unicorn and you aren't willing to pay the price for a cheap mobo+cpu+ram combo to accomplish a better upgrade, and don't understand the basic limitations of the market, especially economics. :pt1cable: 

Quote:
Perhaps you just feel that way about anybody that doesn't share you passion for gaming,


You can try and pretend that's why, but you're simply being ignorant of the real reason which I'll state again so you can absorb it better; If there was money to be made from it, it would be made doing so, if not by ATi/AMD, intel or nVidia, then by Matrox and S3 who would be more than happy to sell 'a TON of cards', or even a new entrant to focus just on that; that this is not the case should give you an indication as to how big and important your market is.

Quote:
But thanks for your helpfulness and concern. <-- (Yes, that's more sarcasm, which am pointing out here so that it doesn't fly over your head like it apparently did in my last post.)


You thought for a second I was concerned? 'Oh Sarcasm, we don't get much of that around these parts.' :kaola: 

My next bit of helpfulness will point you to the forum which best suits your needs --> www.cnet.com
April 23, 2010 12:25:19 PM

Let's start over.
April 23, 2010 2:23:01 PM

Quote:
And that has what to do with what?
Other than I didn't smack you right away for Necro-posting! :hello: 
Because, GA, you have started making personal insults, which is conduct I thought mods were supposed to be above.

Necro-posting?? I realize 'PCI-X Video Cards' is an arcane subject, and thought I might be making as little fuss as possible by just adding to this admittedly older but topically relevant thread rather than starting a whole new duplicate arcane thread.

You're welcome - Apparently, I spend waaay too much time worrying about what other people think, or what might be considered thoughtful.


Quote:
I'm sensing you don't actually understand the difference between your desire for some wishful unattainable item and the crux of the issue: if there was money to be made it would be made, if it's not being done, that's because it's not worth it. Thought you'd understand the Matrox reference, but obviously that went over your head.

I don't think you are understanding what it is I think at all. 'If it's not being done, that's because it's not worth it', sounds remarkably to me like why the patent clerk quit at the turn of the 19th century - because "Everything had already been invented."

http://blog.cestudios.ca/2007/11/02/everything-has-alre...

If it's not being done, it could be that the issue has been thoroughly studied in an intelligent manner and rejected as unworkable, or it could simply be that no one has made the appropriate effort.

I am familiar with the Matrox cards, and that was a long time ago aimed at a completely different market. Things are different now, systems are different now, the market is different now - therefore, opportunities are different now.

Besides that, Matrox cards have always been overpriced and underpowered. Any real solution such as I propose would have to be by one of the big manufacturers to make a truly useful and readily available Vista-ready ActiveX and Open GL compatible chip.

Quote:
It's not even adequate to compete with an Xbox, let alone entry level, mid-range and is so far from cutting-edge the light from a cutting-edge system takes 2 days to reach your solution.

See, this is just the kind of thing that confuses me. I say I'm not trying to compete with a game system, so you make a big production out of telling me it doesn't compete with a gaming system. Okay, we agree on that. Again.

However, it will work fine for a net, office, or multimedia PC, which accounts for far more PCs than gamer rigs.


Quote:
Niche markets they support at subsistence level for the niche markets like multi-monitors and people who put $100 PCI card in their 4 year old eMachine thinking that GF8600GS will game above a GF8400 PCIe model that would dominate it.
There you go again comparing it to a gaming rig. That is why I keep pointing out your referencing gaming rigs.

Also, last I checked $100 is less than the cost of a new computer, even one with minimal graphics.


Quote:
...the majority who would 'only' have a PCI slot and whose integrated graphics isn't at least an X300 or GMA 950 level would have far more problems than just the video, but they would be convinced that the graphics would solve it and give them a 'capable system'. Instead of simply spending the proper money for the proper upgrade. It is time to junk the thing and start over.
Like what problems? When was the last time you actually spent time on the type of computer I described in my initial post? The fact is I am intimately familiar with the challenges, solutions, and limitations of what I am proposing, and you are not. This is evident by your statements.

Please re-read my initial post, then outline just what 'problems' you are referring to that the graphics wouldn't solve.

Quote:
No one said it was, you brought it into the equation, I didn't even consider it in my initial reply, you included it in your first post.
Yes, I did, and I was very specific of the limitations of this and have repeated it - and you still keep trying to compare this solution to gaming rigs, which I brought up initially to dispel!


Quote:
For the workstation market it's pointless to have more than the existing PCI cards, for the add-in market it's pointless to have more, and for the multi-monitor market it's pointless to have more. For all those reasons, you're wrong.
Your opinions are noted.


Quote:
You think I was focusing on games, but I'm not...
...again...


Quote:
I'm focusing on economics and my understanding of the industry and buying this on a large scale professional level for 4 years dealing directly with companies like Matrox in particular to try and get them to commit to a Vista Aero capable card so we could continue with using them on enterprise PCs because we preferred their multi-monitor support at the time.
Wow GA, that is truly cool. For any work you have done in this direction, I am grateful - but I notice that you describe your activity in that market as for your needs. There are other needs out there too - there are other markets out there too.

And I have ALREADY AGREED in my very first post that I doubt that it will ever come to pass. Why you would continue to mockingly hammer on how it will never work I find more than a bit unnecessary, not to mention strange. :non: 

Quote:
Simple, you necro-post wishing for a gilded unicorn and you aren't willing to pay the price for a cheap mobo+cpu+ram combo to accomplish a better upgrade, and don't understand the basic limitations of the market, especially economics.
Don't hold back GA - tell us all how you really feel! :kaola: 

Let me describe my computer for you GA, so you can then make an informed observation. It is a Supermicro dual 3Ghz Xeon with dual 10K HDDs, XP Pro, 4 Gig RAM, dual writeable DVD, sound card, DAW card, etc.. That's the highlights. In particular, the mobo has four separate PCI buses, just as I described in my initial post, which means the video card does not get interfered with by NIC, sound, HDD, or anything else. It is a bit of an antique - the system bus bandwidth is a paltry 3 GB/s, but that means that it runs anything I want to without hiccup - and yes, I can even play some games on it, despite the PCI handicap.

WHY would I replace this with a 'cheap mobo+cpu+ram combo'? Do you really think it would run better - other than the possibility of a PCIe slot, which would doubtless run like crap because of system overhead conflicts?

Funny story, they tried to give me one of those new boxes at work - and after a week I gave it back in frustration, preferring to keep my old computer, which is similar to the one at home, it was MUCH faster than the new box - but then you wouldn't have that experience, so I can understand your prejudice.

Quote:
You can try and pretend that's why, but you're simply being ignorant of the real reason which I'll state again so you can absorb it better; If there was money to be made from it, it would be made doing so, if not by ATi/AMD, intel or nVidia, then by Matrox and S3 who would be more than happy to sell 'a TON of cards', or even a new entrant to focus just on that; that this is not the case should give you an indication as to how big and important your market is.


Goodness GA, one would think if your arguments were really that compelling you wouldn't have to resort to the personal attacks. Ignorant, am I? (I have already given my opinion of your opinions, above.)

Perhaps you could share with us all the real reason you are so adamant about this issue - Perhaps you really have experienced a lot of frustration in your own attempts to increase legacy vid card capability? :??: 
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2010 2:00:14 AM

I was just going to lock this whole mess since you still don't get it, but I'll make sure you realize I've been there, I just solve the issue and don't wish for golden unicorns. And then give you your chance to re-hash it again.

Kiauma said:

Necro-posting?? I realize 'PCI-X Video Cards' is an arcane subject, and thought I might be making as little fuss as possible by just adding to this admittedly older but topically relevant thread rather than starting a whole new duplicate arcane thread.


It's not just 'older' it's 4 years old, and at the time it was created it was barely relevant, and now less so.
You post added nothing to it, other than to show there's still people like you out there. Shoulda just 'acted like a mod' and simply locked the thread and deleted your post. Problem solved, eh? [:thegreatgrapeape:7] [:jaydeejohn:5]

Quote:
"Everything had already been invented."


No that would actually match your attitude, stuck in the past. Where all we need to do is put some sparkles on old hardware and then it's 'new' and capable, versus totally redesigning and moving forward.

Quote:
I am familiar with the Matrox cards, and that was a long time ago aimed at a completely different market. Things are different now, systems are different now, the market is different now - therefore, opportunities are different now.

Besides that, Matrox cards have always been overpriced and underpowered.


Matrox still makes very capable cards for their intended market, including Vista and Win7 capable ones in their newer M series. Your lack of knowledge about that proves my earlier point of you being uninformed about the graphics industry (which we'll come back to), and your unwillingness to pay for it proves my other point that this is the pipe-dream of the cheap that no IHV would ever court. :pfff: 

Quote:
Any real solution such as I propose would have to be by one of the big manufacturers to make a truly useful and readily available Vista-ready ActiveX and Open GL compatible chip.


What does ActiveX and OpenGL have to do with Vista-readiness? Hmmmm, nothing! DirectX maybe, but not ActiveX or OpenGL, both of which the Matrox and S3 chips are compatible with. Your failing is your inability to understand the very thing you're asking for, and what already exists let alone why your gilded unicorns are unfeasible. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]

Quote:
However, it will work fine for a net, office, or multimedia PC, which accounts for far more PCs than gamer rigs.


As will the 6 year old Geforce 6200 PCI card, which is the point.

Quote:
When was the last time you actually spent time on the type of computer I described in my initial post? The fact is I am intimately familiar with the challenges, solutions, and limitations of what I am proposing, and you are not. This is evident by your statements.


Hmm, the last time would have to be when I updated policies on our test BES on a Dell PowerEdge box about 2 month ago, but most of the legacy ones I work with at least have AGP-PRO. But I also have much more experience with PCI cards and workstations with pro and consumer graphics than you which is evident by YOUR statements. Anyone who knows me in the forum knows I've owned Tyan and ASUS multi-CPU (Athlon MP and intel) editing rigs in the past. I currently run a laptop with a Matrox G series card (attached to 5 monitors) which replaced the not as good PCI GF8400 before it.
I have the experience, which is why I know you don't understand the industry limitations, and the true size and value of the market you are talking about. You just have an itch to keep your personal choice server rigs and think the rest of the market should respect that and just try to keep that alive instead of you moving on. And the problems were as like I said, for that majority of people needing a PCI upgrade not, your singular situation. The majority of those would have far more other problems than just bandwidth to a PCI graphics card, for modern apps requiring that graphics power, because they would focus on the base 'minimum requirements' not actual useful configurations/upgrades.

Now you explain what a PCI-X option adds to the non-gaming applications you pretend are the focus, that aren't already addressed by the PCI GF9500 solution you brought up in the first post,... if you can.

Quote:
Let me describe my computer for you GA, so you can then make an informed observation. It is a Supermicro dual 3Ghz Xeon with dual 10K HDDs, XP Pro, 4 Gig RAM, dual writeable DVD, sound card, DAW card, etc.. That's the highlights. In particular, the mobo has four separate PCI buses, just as I described in my initial post, which means the video card does not get interfered with by NIC, sound, HDD, or anything else. It is a bit of an antique - the system bus bandwidth is a paltry 3 GB/s, but that means that it runs anything I want to without hiccup - and yes, I can even play some games on it, despite the PCI handicap.

WHY would I replace this with a 'cheap mobo+cpu+ram combo'? Do you really think it would run better - other than the possibility of a PCIe slot, which would doubtless run like crap because of system overhead conflicts?


Why? Simple, whatever application you think it is that requires that extra graphics power. You are limited by the lowest bottleneck of your system. If it's the graphics card then it's simple, sell if it's still got niche value which a Supermicro system would (to people looking for servers and non-graphics workstations), then spend that money on a more balanced system. That's technology, when new comes out you buy and sell as needed, not ask the market to change because you don't want to change. If graphics were going to be a concern, then why get a limited workstation board and not a Tyan board with a graphics slot? Pretty straight forward situation and solution, that is staring you in the face, but instead you want to focus on what's wrong with the industry's choice to ignore PCI-X, and not with your solution.

Quote:
Funny story, they tried to give me one of those new boxes at work - and after a week I gave it back in frustration, preferring to keep my old computer, which is similar to the one at home, it was MUCH faster than the new box - but then you wouldn't have that experience, so I can understand your prejudice.


I have that experience from a laptop perspective, but then again I have a budget, I have purchasing contacts and I also buy my own stuff to match my needs even with my own money if need be. So I've had the initial experience, I just react to it differently and solve the problem with an improvement that works not gripe about a solution no one has any intention on providing and I know isn't about to come about.

Quote:
Perhaps you could share with us all the real reason you are so adamant about this issue - Perhaps you really have experienced a lot of frustration in your own attempts to increase legacy vid card capability? :??: 


My reason is simple, too many people like yourself, posting after google searches, digging up old threads, whining about something and not understanding the simple truths about their situations and making it everyone else's problems. This forum is becoming full of these type of threads.

But... you're right, everything should be PCI-X and intel should go back to trying to make 10Ghz Netburst CPUs on socket 423, keep it Old Skool baby !! :foudtag: 
April 24, 2010 2:56:20 AM

GA (Love that nick, BTW), I really, honestly, truly do not understand why you have to be so nasty. Where have I complained? Where have I whined? Where have I made my 'problem' everybody elses problem? Where have I said everything needs to be PCI-X and we need to go back to socket 423?

I don't have a problem with new technology, I use it every day. I am looking forward to building a HTPC next winter and a 64 bit system next year. I just, simply, honestly thought my idea had some merit - an idea you apparently have little tolerance for.

The problem, as I see it, is you seem to be absolutely bothered by my suggestion of what use a PCI-X video card could be. Apparently, judging by your next to last paragraph, you seem to be genuinely bothered by a lot of things. In fact, after carefully re-reading all of your posts on this thread, I really have to consider that perhaps this really isn't about me and my 'whining' at all.

Dude, forget about me, please. Forget about PCI-X, forget about jerks who come to this board expressly for the purpose of bothering you with their pathetic ideas. In fact, honestly, I think it might be wise if you were to take a break from a lot of things for a while.

Thinking about it, I can honestly say I never took this whole PCI-X thing as seriously as you apparently do. I apologize for bringing it here. You have made your point - I see the futility of bringing it up here.

I hope you are able to get some rest and maybe a little perspective, and are feeling better soon.

Take good care.
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2010 3:24:36 AM

Yeah once again, it's everyone else's problem, not you lack of understanding, your unwillingness to change your own situation, nor your comment "I suppose it is of no concern since it seems I have unwittingly struck up a conversation with a graphics marketing guru who apparently knows all about it." to bring forth the reply in kind. :pfff: 

The fact is you're uninformed on the situation you complain about especially the markets, and can't even provide an example of the application that requires the added bandwidth of PCI-X that isn't worth a complete upgrade. So of course then once again it's everyone else's issue.

How about you give me a break from you and your type, while you go edjumakate yourself in the meantime; and then we'll both be better off from your making more of an effort on all fronts. :hello: 
April 24, 2010 3:35:47 AM

Is that what this was really about? Is that why I rated all the abuse?

Geesh, and I thought you were just doing the cyber equivalent of going home after a bad day and kicking the dog. Again, I apologize - for the 'marketing guru' comment too - you do apparently have some experience in that field. In my own defense I should point out how most people on the net can be...

Although, I'm not real sure why I would have to elucidate to a man of your obvious wisdom, talents and knowledge the general benefit of just a bit higher frame rates for any 3D application. I do a lot of CAD drawing, for example, and though a PCI card is usable it is not always smooth when panning or rotating. Also, when I recently upgraded from my FX5200 to the 9400 (yes, I compromised) my 3D screen saver went from about 50 FPS to 160 - that was nice. It certainly made me wonder what even the slightest increase in bandwidth might accomplish.

I am also able to stream programs from my HD box to my PC and watch them now, though my monitor is just a 20" widescreen - it would be nice to get a bigger monitor and watch 1080P...

Should I go on?
April 24, 2010 3:38:29 AM

And, also, just for my edjumikation, perhaps you could explain to me just how making a suggestion as I have is making it everybody elses problem.

I just do not understand how you get from A to E, and would really appreciate your enlightening me.
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2010 4:03:29 AM

"I think that vid chip makers really missed the boat on not supporting PCI-X, and I'll tell you why..

..but IMO it's a bit
ridiculous to see a GeForce 9500 GT with 1 GB of RAM with a legacy PCI interface..

..I think if one of the vid chip manufacturers wised up..

..the market mentality for regular 32 bit legacy PCI seems just too entrenched, which is just sad.."


:heink: 

How did I ever get the impression you were saying it was anyone else's problem. [:grahamlv:3]


My first sentence pretty much summed up the reality;

"Theoretically you're right, practically speaking no point."

and it's still true after the whole incredulous rest of the thread leading to the same end despite all the resistance, and my missing the whole value of "the hits on this old dead thread" in a forum that gets 50 hits in a week off of spam thread with an intriguing title.

But hey, sure, maybe it's just me, just them, just everyone else.... ;) 
April 24, 2010 4:09:45 AM

I just do not see a problem, personally, with wanting a little more out of what I have, and wondering if it is even possible, and exploring it a little. Tell me, do you consider your system the be-all and end-all of all systems? I suspect you might not. Wish you had the money or technology to improve it? I suspect you might.

Now, if I had come here and complained that my system sucked and blamed it on the big bad manufacturers who wouldn't make the parts I wanted, I could certainly see how that would be making it someone elses problem - but I ask you, where have I actually done that?

I like my system, but at the same time, which I think is perfectly natural, I occasionally wonder about ways to improve it. Honestly, you act as though I was making you personally responsible for the shortcoming of my system and demanding that you personally produce the fix. I'm not.

I was just suggesting that it might not be entirely retarded if someone were to manufacture a PCI-X video card - that it might see some small sales - perhaps even enough to pay for itself, seeing as to how it's just adaptation of an industry standard rather than development of anything actually new. Or maybe not - though I honestly have been made aware of a lot of people in my very same situation. Honestly.

But I will agree that window is closing. Like I said - they missed the boat. Perhaps the 'wise up' comment stretched it a bit - but what can I say - I'm an animated guy! :D 

...and I really don't see why it seems to chap your ass so much to agree with me when I agree with you. :kaola: 
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2010 4:22:16 AM

Well we'll leave it there, I build to my needs and fit my needs to what's available and realistic. I know a bunch of similar situation, and I do what I did with my Matrox work rigs, move on (all are now on ATi , nV and even intel solutions).

Anywho, so I'll leave it at that, cuz I'm going to bed so I can go skiing tomorrow, and don't want to get sucked back-in. :sleep: 
April 24, 2010 4:28:23 AM

Good night GA - thanks for your patience. Have fun skiing - I'm jealous! :sol: 
March 9, 2011 10:09:11 PM

If their was a company that produced high end (able to utilize the full capabilities of) PCI-X 3d graphics card that would smoke a normal PCI (top of the line) graphics card. i'd jump on it even if it was $150-$200 dollars. the fact is there are tons of people who buy/acquire old server boards that don't have apg slots or PCI-E slots (i can name about 50 because thats how many of the arima hdama-i dual socket dualcore motherboards me and a lot of friends ordered and built into damn good computers) our only drawback is we are looking for the best possible graphics cards that will run 3d applications and games. sadly we're forced to go with normal pci cards. sigh...............
so what other options do we have that would be better than normal pci? adapters? anything? because these 2 dual core 2.4 opteron 280's i'm running are doing some serious business overclocked with 32gb of ram running 64 bit xp pro.
May 13, 2011 4:00:45 PM

Hi Kenny! Glad to see this topic still draws interest...

Yes, I would still love to see a PCI-X video card - but unfortunately as time goes by it just gets more and more unlikely - even though you can still buy new cards with new chips with the legacy PCI interface. I just bought an ATI HD 5450 with 512 MB RAM and an HDMI connector - and paid almost $100 for it!

The best legacy PCI graphics cards running currently, IMO, is the Nvidia 9500 series - but your mileage may vary...

...until some day someone comes up with a PCI-X to PCIe riser card adapter and the driver to run it... ;) 
a c 271 U Graphics card
May 13, 2011 5:06:39 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!