Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PCIe

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
September 29, 2006 1:35:35 AM

If I buy a PCIe motherboard, do I get any increase in performance for my standard PCI devices over a motherboard that has just PCI slots?

More about : pcie

September 29, 2006 2:30:00 AM

At least thats the way it is now. In the future, there will be a difference, but at the moment the market is still transitioning to PCI-E, and so now there is a lot of confusion on the topic. Simple answer, not now, yes in the future. That said, it still makes sense to buy some PCI cards, especially those that will be easily replaceable, such as USB cards and sound cards. Right now PCI-E equivalents are so much more expensive, and for the benefit (which is minimal at this point), you would be paying much more than you needed to. Besides, by the time PCI-E becomes the standard, the cards you buy today will be obsolete. In fact, the only place that I can see any benefit at all from buying a PCI-E card rather than a PCI card would be things like Gigabit ethernet, Firewire800, and storage controllers, and these generally see only marginal improvements. In theory, however, anything that would benefit from a high bandwidth serial connection with the system would see a significant improvement.

Unfortunately, today's peripheral cards often do not take advantage of the bandwidth that they are alloted now, so obviously they would only see marginal improvements; related to being a newly developed product, or they may in fact see performance reductions due to the fact they use the same chips and just put a PCI-E converter on them.

I must make it clear that I am not speaking of video cards, which definitely do see a huge improvement over the PCI bus, and a not so much improvement over its counterpart, AGP. I also must make it clear that I am not talking about server technology, as that is far outside the scope of my discussion (and that of my general knowldge).
October 1, 2006 3:58:46 PM

PCIe has more bandwidth over PCI although PCIe is serial so the number of links? (PCIex16 ... PCIex1) makes the bandwidth greater PCIex1 i think has more bandwidth than PCI, although the extra bandwidth PCIe provides is not used, it is unsaturated, therefore resulting in little or no performance increase.

Annother example of this is AGP compared to PCIex16, computers and graphics card cannot and will not use the bandwidth provided to them, due to todays technology, graphics cards would be safe using AGP for a few more years. You would probably not see the difference in PCIex8, providing half the bandwidth that PCIex16 provides, though with PCIex4 you probably would. :D 

The market transitioned into PCIex16 due to the higher bandwidth and by switching over to a "faster" standard nvidia and intel make more money from their motherboards $$$! :) 
Related resources
October 1, 2006 4:30:18 PM

Quote:
The market transitioned into PCIex16 due to the higher bandwidth and by switching over to a "faster" standard nvidia and intel make more money from their motherboards $$$! :) 


I would also venture to say that they did it to ease the transition into totally PCI-E boards. We must admit it, it will happen sooner rather than later, thats just how technology goes. It was only recently that we started surpassing the bandwidth available for the AGP 4x slot (think 6000 or x000 series cards), so raw bandwidth isn't at issue here. Its the different features that a new standard brings. You are able to do much more with an X16 slot than an AGP 8X slot. This is due to the fact that all 16 lanes are bi-directional and can recieve just as much data as they give out. I'll leave it to your imagination what they could do with that, but needless to say, they aren't utilizing all that bandwidth in and out of the system yet.

Side note: I wonder if a PhysX card would do any better on PCI-E? I know the whole physics card is pointless right now, but I wonder if there would be any performance gain from what it already does (nothing?) in a manner that would be beneficial to anyone...
October 1, 2006 4:57:01 PM

yeah and also i guess that intel likes to be the "pioneer" in the industry world. :D 

Intel adopted PCIex16.

Intel was the first to use DDR2 for desktops.

Intel is pioneering SATA with the new "mainstream" I965P chipsets, there is no IDE conroller with the ICH8 southbridge (or ICH8R ).

Quote:
Intel understands the importance of standards in the technology industry. Intel encourages innovation throughout the industry by forming, leading and contributing to a wide range of standards and specifications groups. Standards are an important way to advance new technologies, bring innovative products and technologies to market faster, and deliver greater performance at less cost.

-Intel
October 1, 2006 5:24:38 PM

Yes, intel is a pioneer in many cases, but it has also created many of these technologies. PCI-E comes to mind. It just pushes the market forward, nothing wrong with that. It does however make it difficult to compete with them. Their main competitor has to stay on their feet to keep up. If they can, it only means good for the consumer. If they can't, Intel will be hit with an antitrust lawsuit. Two very diverging outcomes, both possible. I hope for the first, rather than the second option.
October 1, 2006 5:35:05 PM

true :D  intel and amd are both good, its just the cpu that makes it for me, though i dont hope either go out of business because:
no competition = expensive cpus etc.. :( 
October 1, 2006 5:48:31 PM

I think a lot of people forget that Intel is much more than just a processor company. They make hundreds, if not thousands of different products for all parts of industry. They will never go out of business.

AMD, on the other hand, has a much weaker foothold. True, they do make many products besides processors, but that is by far their main business. If they totally had to pull out of that segment, they would soon become nothing more than a bit of history.

That said, I don't think either will go out of business any time soon. It, like everything else, will happen eventually, but it may not be in our lifetimes.

My personal preference? AMD, but thats just because I have used AMD since the beginning, and all of my equiment is AMD related, and they will be back on top sooner than later (speculation/hope). I just like them as a company. Maybe its just the rebel spirit inside of me...
October 1, 2006 7:08:09 PM

yeah and although i dont really care toomuch about the company (as said above) i do have a slight lean owards intel (i think its because ive got 3 intel machines and a core 2 duo system soon) :lol: 

although i as going to go the amd 3200+ 939 route months ago but i decided to wait for am2 and then core 2 duo was supposed to be good, so i waited, and then it came out, and then i waited..... and i am finally am getting a core 2 duo system! i guess it turned out ok that i waited seeing as cpu prices have dropped considerably, core 2 duo now beats all (i believe)amd and pentium 4 single core cpus and they are cheaper or around the same price as the single core amd 939 3500+s and 3200+s around january/febuary :D 
October 1, 2006 7:37:11 PM

I think I am a bit of an oddity here in these forums. I don't care so much about raw performance as others here obviously do. Since 200 dollars is a significant amount of money to me, I consider every purchase I make an investment in the companies that make, distribute, and sell the product. As such, I like to invest my dollars in the company that I like better, in this case AMD, even though they don't dominate the performance curve anymore. I am firmly under the belief that in an industry that one company can be the best one around, bar none, and then be the bottom of the scrap heap two months later, one should make wise, long-term decisions, based not solely on performance, but other feartures as well.

I researched the system in my sig for nearly 6 months before I bought it in January of this year. It WAS the best in that price category, but like all computers, no longer is. It also has the ability to upgrade to the latest tech when it comes available to me.

But maybe making long term choices is just my style. I don't have a lot of cash.
October 2, 2006 5:55:49 PM

yeah i guess you have got an *alright* upgrade path, you can upgrade to a cheap/mid range 939 cpu (athough they will, in time, go up in price), you could get more ddr ram (although again ram prices will go up due to decreased need for ddr ram,amd and intel now use ddr2). You can upgrade the graphics card to a nvida 7600/7900/7950 series gpu or newer ati 1900 series cards... you have got a upgrade path although it might be costly to upgrade... :( 

aLso at least you ddint choose a prescott pentium 4 system (athough you would be able to upgrade to core 2 duo if you bought a uber expensive motherboard that supports it).... Anyway you choose what had the best performance at the time and whilst not getting a really expensive processor you had the best performance for the money :) 
October 2, 2006 10:35:35 PM

You musta not looked at my motherboard. Check it out. Link
October 3, 2006 3:51:28 PM

i meant if you went down the pentium 4 route and bought your *expensive* motherboard you might or might not have been able to upgrade to the best performance cpu at the moment (C2D).

So the way you went does enable you to choose a better cpu than the one you have currently, you went down the safe route, even though you would not have the fatsest cpu, you bring a lot more performance to the table. You chose the right choice. :) 
!