Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

X1950 AGP on AGP 4x system

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
January 17, 2007 10:13:20 AM

What sort of performance hit would result from running one of the ATI Radeon X1950 AGP cards with AGP 4x motherboard compared to AGP 8x (ideally with P4 2.5Ghz or similar CPU and 1 Gig RAM)?

Has anyone tried it, or is willing to run some comparative benchmarks to help me decide if it's worth my getting one of these cards? Thanks

More about : x1950 agp agp system

January 17, 2007 10:47:00 AM

I wouldn't try it.

I am (embarassed) running a GeForce FX 5600XT on my Dell machine with a 4x motherboard. Get awful performance. However when I put it in a motherboard with an 8x port I got (not brilliant but) better performance.

I think that the X1950Pro isn't worth it if you are only going to get 4x transfer speed. I also think that it's overkill with your system setup. (Not that I can talk with my 2.8GHz Northwood P4 and 1GB DDR1 RAM)

But I won't be upgrading my system any more. Its 4 years old so I will be building a new system sometime this year. Possibly when Vista SP1, Intel's Bearlake motherboards, Penryn processors, ATi's R600 and NVidia's next generation DX10 (presumably 8900 series) comes out.
January 17, 2007 10:47:20 AM

I thought that I read on the forums before that agp 8x isnt actually that much faster than 4x. anybody else confirm this?
Related resources
January 17, 2007 10:48:35 AM

hullo!

Before i begin, yes AGP 4X doesnt make a huge difference compared with AGP 8X its mainly the rest of the system that does all the bottlenecking.

I had a similar set up.

p4 2.5 ghz (socket 478)
2 gigs of slow pc2700 ram (which i still use :lol:  )
x1950 pro agp on a 4x AGP system.

I used to get good frame rates in game, but the only way to compare it would be with some bench mark results. Sooo, with that setup and fast write disabled (my mobo didnt support it) i used to get a 3dmark 2005 score of about 4500 points.

Now my set up is:

c2d E6600 at stock
2 gigs of ram (same as before)
x1950 pro on 8X AGP + fast write enabled

Now the score of 3dmark05 is 10121


so yeah it made a huge difference for me and even in game. If anything the cpu will be your biggest bottle neck and not really the 4X AGP slot as iv already mentioned. And if your mobo doesnt have fast write then that may also reduce the performance slightly.
January 17, 2007 11:34:38 AM

Thanks for the lightning fast replies :D 

Quote:
I had a similar set up.

p4 2.5 ghz (socket 478)
2 gigs of slow pc2700 ram (which i still use :lol:  )
x1950 pro agp on a 4x AGP system.

I used to get good frame rates in game, but the only way to compare it would be with some bench mark results. Sooo, with that setup and fast write disabled (my mobo didnt support it) i used to get a 3dmark 2005 score of about 4500 points.


Interesting Blade... your score is around 1800 points shy of the results in the ARP platform analysis that used AGP 8X and gor around 6300 points in 3DMark 2005 http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/10/agp-platform-ana...

I wonder how much of that is down to the missing fastwrite... I think I have that... must chk.

Any other experiences with AGP 4X setups and X1950s that may help clarify the matter are most welcome ;)  Thanks again to all.
January 17, 2007 11:37:36 AM

well i used to have a 7800 gs extreme before aswell, and while my first go on it gave me a score of about 5600 (hard ware acceleration was enabled). My second use saw alot of the textures just vaporising into thin air. So i got rid of the hardware acceleration from the display menu and then everything was working fine, but my score went down to 4000 -_-

in the new mobo i can activate everything so im guessing all of that conbined made a big difference in performance.

Unfortunately i havnt got the 7800 gs any more, so cant tell you what its like on these settings.
January 17, 2007 3:03:02 PM

Quote:
Before i begin, yes AGP 4X doesnt make a huge difference compared with AGP 8X its mainly the rest of the system that does all the bottlenecking.


The man is right. If it were only your AGP there would not be much of a difference, but the rest of your system is too slow and the video card will just sit there and wait on the rest of your system.
January 17, 2007 3:44:55 PM

i run a 1950agp on 4x agp. but then again i use a 3.06ghz p4.....

works badass
January 17, 2007 3:46:09 PM

If you have a 4x AGP slot my guess is your system is fairly out dated. If I were you I'd toss the money in to your bank account and save up for a whole new system.
January 17, 2007 4:03:36 PM

X1950 is too much power for the rest of your system. A 6600GT, 7600GT, X1650, those are more than enough. I have a similar system, except with only 512 RAM. Check the best cards for the money thread for a more detailed analysis.

If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....
January 17, 2007 4:07:04 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.
January 17, 2007 4:37:24 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.

You've obviously never overclocked a Northwood Pentium 4! They overclock really well and remain very stable until you start raising the Vcore. At higher Vcores Northwoods can randomly die (Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome i think it's called). I have my 2.8 Northwood at 3.7ghz on the stock cooler!
January 17, 2007 4:44:04 PM

Quote:
You've obviously never overclocked a Northwood Pentium 4!


Now, that's a bold statement! I have overclocked Northwood Pentium 4. This is not the point. The OP does not know the difference AGP8 makes vs. AGP4. The OP has probably never seen the BIOS screen and likely does not even know what it is. Advising the OP to OC his NW is a bad idea. That's the point.
January 17, 2007 4:57:05 PM

Quote:
You've obviously never overclocked a Northwood Pentium 4!


Now, that's a bold statement! I have overclocked Northwood Pentium 4. This is not the point. The OP does not know the difference AGP8 makes vs. AGP4. The OP has probably never seen the BIOS screen and likely does not even know what it is. Advising the OP to OC his NW is a bad idea. That's the point.

Sorry, i thought you were one of these "overclocking is bad, it voids warranty" etc etc type of person.

You do make a good point there but there are many very high quality guides out there that can help people get into overclocking. After all, everyone has to start somewhere!
January 17, 2007 5:15:48 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Advising the OP to OC his NW is a bad idea. That's the point.


:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

I agree

unless he knows alot more about cpu's than gpu's and knows what he is doing.... :roll:

though quantumsheep does have a point. But still, if you want to o/c i suggest u get a new system first then play around with ur old one to get some experience. If you end up destroying ur pc, at least u will have a new one to continue working with.
January 18, 2007 6:41:50 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.
January 18, 2007 7:40:19 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.

Northwood was a much better and more efficient use of the Netburst architecture than Prescott could ever hope to be. Going to 3.6ghz on a Northwood with the stock cooler is perfectly reasonlable. If Intel had stuck with Northwood, increased the Cache to 2MB, upped the FSB to 1066 and gone to 65nm i reckon it would be competitive agaisnt K8. Especially if in Dual Core format, would be much better than the Pentium D series.

Then again, that is all just my opinion and speculation.
January 19, 2007 4:07:14 AM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.

Northwood was a much better and more efficient use of the Netburst architecture than Prescott could ever hope to be. Going to 3.6ghz on a Northwood with the stock cooler is perfectly reasonlable. If Intel had stuck with Northwood, increased the Cache to 2MB, upped the FSB to 1066 and gone to 65nm i reckon it would be competitive agaisnt K8. Especially if in Dual Core format, would be much better than the Pentium D series.

Then again, that is all just my opinion and speculation.


well, I really cant comment on that as I dont know that much about Northwood besides the fact that its a older micron process...
January 19, 2007 4:51:34 AM

Quote:
If you have a 4x AGP slot my guess is your system is fairly out dated. If I were you I'd toss the money in to your bank account and save up for a whole new system.


You could just wait for the prices to fall !
If you need a fix right now
7800gs @ newegg for $160
Seem like a good match for your rig and it won't break the bank!

AGP4x VS. AGP8X is no big deal ,don't let that stop you..
Overall your gaming will be better with a better video card..
January 19, 2007 5:57:00 AM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.

Northwood was a much better and more efficient use of the Netburst architecture than Prescott could ever hope to be. Going to 3.6ghz on a Northwood with the stock cooler is perfectly reasonlable. If Intel had stuck with Northwood, increased the Cache to 2MB, upped the FSB to 1066 and gone to 65nm i reckon it would be competitive agaisnt K8. Especially if in Dual Core format, would be much better than the Pentium D series.

Then again, that is all just my opinion and speculation.


well, I really cant comment on that as I dont know that much about Northwood besides the fact that its a older micron process...

It has less Pipelines to process information through (20vs30) and used quite a lot less heat. I'm sure someone like Jack could give you a mroe detailed comparison.
January 19, 2007 5:35:08 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.

Northwood was a much better and more efficient use of the Netburst architecture than Prescott could ever hope to be. Going to 3.6ghz on a Northwood with the stock cooler is perfectly reasonlable. If Intel had stuck with Northwood, increased the Cache to 2MB, upped the FSB to 1066 and gone to 65nm i reckon it would be competitive agaisnt K8. Especially if in Dual Core format, would be much better than the Pentium D series.

Then again, that is all just my opinion and speculation.


well, I really cant comment on that as I dont know that much about Northwood besides the fact that its a older micron process...

It has less Pipelines to process information through (20vs30) and used quite a lot less heat. I'm sure someone like Jack could give you a mroe detailed comparison.

really? Besides the die shift, what were the (atleast supposed) improvements with prescott from Northwood? I would expect to have a significant improvement in other areas if they were to go from 20 to 30...
January 20, 2007 2:46:48 PM

Quote:
If you OC well however, I suppose you could hit 3.6 with your P4. If so, the X1950 could be used well....


Dude does not know squat. Do not give him any crazy ideas about OC, he will only break his PC.

To OP: Dude, do not OC anything. Really.



oh come on! I OWN a prescott p4 2.4 ghz. I hit 3.0 with stock. I've heard that Northwoods are similar to my p4, so i offered my own opinion.

Granted, my knowledge was based on my 0.9 micron P4, compared to the 1.3 micron; so I agree, 3.6 is pushing it. But 3.0 is much more realistic...

The main reason I suggested OCIng at all is due to the P4 OC guide in the stickies.

Northwood was a much better and more efficient use of the Netburst architecture than Prescott could ever hope to be. Going to 3.6ghz on a Northwood with the stock cooler is perfectly reasonlable. If Intel had stuck with Northwood, increased the Cache to 2MB, upped the FSB to 1066 and gone to 65nm i reckon it would be competitive agaisnt K8. Especially if in Dual Core format, would be much better than the Pentium D series.

Then again, that is all just my opinion and speculation.


well, I really cant comment on that as I dont know that much about Northwood besides the fact that its a older micron process...

It has less Pipelines to process information through (20vs30) and used quite a lot less heat. I'm sure someone like Jack could give you a mroe detailed comparison.

really? Besides the die shift, what were the (atleast supposed) improvements with prescott from Northwood? I would expect to have a significant improvement in other areas if they were to go from 20 to 30...

Not so sure about improvements, overall it was a less efficient use of Netburst mhz for mhz than Northwood. Only thing it was better at was media enconding probably because of the larger L2 Cache size (1mb vs 512kb)
January 20, 2007 5:08:34 PM

hmm, couldnt they have just increased the cache on the Northwood as you said earlier instead? That probably would have been easier...

was there no positive differance in prescott besides the cache increase?
January 21, 2007 8:42:53 AM

Quote:
hmm, couldnt they have just increased the cache on the Northwood as you said earlier instead? That probably would have been easier...

was there no positive differance in prescott besides the cache increase?


There was one more thing that Prescott was designed to do, reach higher clock speeds. To be honest they failed miserably, reaching a wall at 3.8ghz.

If they had just dropped Northwood to 90NM and increased the Cache it'd of been a much better CPU.
January 21, 2007 12:52:13 PM

Quote:
hmm, couldnt they have just increased the cache on the Northwood as you said earlier instead? That probably would have been easier...

was there no positive differance in prescott besides the cache increase?


There was one more thing that Prescott was designed to do, reach higher clock speeds. To be honest they failed miserably, reaching a wall at 3.8ghz.

If they had just dropped Northwood to 90NM and increased the Cache it'd of been a much better CPU.

Yes, I remember hearing about 'tejas' the 4 ghz single core being cancelled... Why did they hit such a barrier? You would think that as long as they got smaller and smaller dies it would be OK... Though when I think about it, netburst and its heat probably increased at too high a rate in comparison with the die changes...