I have a question regarding pci-e 4X

[blade85]

Hulloo

I have been looking for some info regarding the difference PCI-E 4X will have compared with PCI-E 16X.

How big is the difference gaming wise???

Im sure i saw a link somewhere but cant find it now :?

 

[db101]

PCIe 4x cards only utilize four "lanes" of bandwidth and the 16x cards have sixteen lanes. I believe the maximum bandwidth available for each are: 1000MB/s for 4x cards, and 4GB/s of bandwidth for their 16x counterparts.

Most (all?) gaming cards use PCIe x16 cards because of the higher bandwidth (do they even make graphics cards for x4?). If you can find a 4x card, it's compatible with 8x and 16x slots. (All smaller PCIe cards can fit in a larger slot, but not vice-versa.)

You can check out google for more info, or wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIE

 

[Hose]

Seems like there's nothing to compare... as of yet, there are no(?) x4 video cards. In fact there's very little "anything" in less than x16. All of the x16s are video cards.

The x1 and x4 slots on modern mobos are so far just wasted. They should have left them off all together. Instead, they should have put 2 or 3, x16 slots... then any PCIE device would work in any PCIE slot.

 

[Xazax310]

Any card will run at x4 PCI-E however there will be some performance loss, if you put something like a 7900GTX in a x4 PCI-E u will see loss, but if you put a low end card like 7300GT/7600GT i doubt you will see much a loss because there bandwith is less.

 

[Blacken]

AGP is said to utilize almost no more than x4, comparing the difference between 4 and 8 adds 0 - 2fps. [Can't remember where I saw this statistic]. We haven't touched the full potential of AGP nor PCI-e and it doesn't look as if we will for quite some time as you still see PCI-e counterparts on AGP trading performance.

Check this: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeon64mb&page=5&cookie%5Ftest=1

Seems ATI produced a PCIe x4 version of the X600XT? Who knew :lol:

 

[Statross]

he means the secondary PCI-e slot on 965 motherboards, obviously>.>

 

[Slobogob]

It really depends on the Video Card. To my knowledge the performance difference is neglectible for mid-range and older high end cards (ie. 7900 GT). I wouldn´t stick a 1950XTX or a 8800GTS or so in it though.

 

[aron311]

I had an ATI x1800xl that didnt work with pci-e 4x, however it works fine with my x850xtpe, its a bit of a minefield as to what works.

I read that x1800GTO's would work though, oddly enough. As will the x1600 series. With regard to Nvidia, i have no idea which ones will.

Theres nowhere documenting exactly what cards will work so its best to steer away from the 4x motherboards.

I think i have encountered the full speed of pci-e 4x as playing battlefield 2142 on max, which runs fine, when theres alot of stuff on the screen it doesnt lag it kinda hangs sometimes its really weird.

 

[quantumsheep]

I saw a review of the Asrock dual vSata board somewhere (the one with AGP 8x and PCI-E 4x) and they put a 7900GT in the PCI-E slot. Apparently you only get a bottleneck in a VERY few games, and even then it's always less than 10%.

 

[quantumsheep]

kinda hangs sometimes its really weird.

That's the result of a lack of RAM usually - it has to read the pagefile from the hard drive which is a lot slower than reading the data inside the RAM.

 

[aron311]

I would have thought more a lack of graphics RAM (256mb) with pcie-4x limited transfer speed.

i play at 1280x960

i have 1gb ddr400 dual channel with a 74gb raptor, and i play with nothing else in the background and ive even turned off most unneccessary OS crap

But it could be i guess, are you suggesting i need more than a gig to play 2142

 

[quantumsheep]

But it could be i guess, are you suggesting i need more than a gig to play 2142

I am indeed suggesting that! The BF2 engine was designed to run perfectly with 2GB of RAM, not 1GB.

256mb graphics RAM is more than enough for ANY game at the moment.

 

[aron311]

I dont see why this game should need OVER 750 MB of memory all to itself to run right. (Windows using 250ish idle)

EA programmers stink :lol:

But atleast i have seen an increase in performance with my X-Fi 8)

 

[quantumsheep]

I dont see why this game should need OVER 750 MB of memory all to itself to run right. (Windows using 250ish idle)

There was some kind of article somewhere that showed BF2 (exactly the same engine as BF2142) needed 2gb of RAM to maintain Consistent HIGH fps. I'll dig around and see if i can find it.

EA programmers stink

The game wasn't programmed by EA! It was programmed by DICE Interactive. EA just had the easy job of publishing it.

 

[Blacken]

There was some kind of article somewhere that showed BF2 (exactly the same engine as BF2142) needed 2gb of RAM to maintain Consistent HIGH fps.

Be it with 1GB, your hard drive is spinning constantly when it comes to the 'within a second bracket' 200% frame-rate fluxuation. Otherwise, it's smooth

 

[aron311]

The funny thing is BF2 on full never slows down on my system!

EA still stinks for all their lameass remakes :twisted:

The battlefield series are my fav EA (published {ty Quantamsheep lol}) games by far atm, hope they do a good job with C&C 3

 

[Blacken]

The funny thing is BF2 on full never slows down on my system!

EA still stinks for all their lameass remakes :twisted:

The battlefield series are my fav EA (published {ty Quantamsheep lol}) games by far atm, hope they do a good job with C&C 3

Agreed on 2142(?). 1942 and BF2 where respectable. The new one is just to monopolize on the popularity. That and I haven't much patients for futuristic games :roll:
Loved the first few C&C's and the NFS line though.

 

[quantumsheep]

There was some kind of article somewhere that showed BF2 (exactly the same engine as BF2142) needed 2gb of RAM to maintain Consistent HIGH fps.

Be it with 1GB, your hard drive is spinning constantly when it comes to the 'within a second bracket' 200% frame-rate fluxuation. Otherwise, it's smooth

Someone HAD to come along with techno mumbo-jumbo didn't they!

I've started partying for New Years eve already! Going to have a toast when it hit's new years eve in different parts of the world

 

[Blacken]

Good idea. Hey, it's 7 minutes into the PM here in the east. Time to break open the rum and eggnog

 

[quantumsheep]

Good idea. Hey, it's 7 minutes into the PM here in the east. Time to break open the rum and eggnog

17:09 here, already had 5 toasts.

I have to ask, what is it with you people and Eggnog? I find it disgusting!

 

[Blacken]

Not so bad with enough spice ... and rum ...

 

[blade85]

I saw a review of the Asrock dual vSata board somewhere (the one with AGP 8x and PCI-E 4x) and they put a 7900GT in the PCI-E slot. Apparently you only get a bottleneck in a VERY few games, and even then it's always less than 10%.

thats the kind of info im looking for, cause i have that board :lol: :lol:

I currently have an AGP card (x1950 pro)..Im not planning on selling it, but lets say i sell this and get a pci-e version instead (cause its cheaper) and stick that into the mobo (the pci-e slot in this mobo can only run at 4x), how much of a difference will i see in different games?


So far if im not mistaken its usually the lower end cards that barely see any difference, while the higher end cards may loose some performance. right?

so will it be worth (gaming wise) selling my AGP version just to buy the same thing in PCI-e...even though it may make me some money. :roll:

 

[Blacken]

I'd stick with your AGP compared to PCIx4 to be safe. AGP still performs well [sometimes better] - but yeah, the AGP versions are overpriced. :?

 

[Xazax310]

The PCI-E x4 slot can also be used for RAID cards and other PCI-E slots